Mobile Alabama Removes Statue of Confederate Without Notice

[Hutch Starskey]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

He knows that. He just doesn't care. Because he is full of shit.

He knows that. He just doesn't care. Because he is full of shit

Not one thing I have stated is incorrect.

 

[martybegan]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

 

[Correll]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

Funny, a minute ago, thinking "blacks were inferior" was reason to forever shame and denounce people from another time period.


ANd suddenly, it is no big deal.


Mmm, it is almost like the shit you were saying earliers, against the Confederates, was just shit, it was not the real reason you want to cause trouble like you are doing now...

 

[Correll]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

Liberals are so used to not thinking,



that they don't understand that not careing about something like this, in one moment,


shows that you were lying when you pretended to care about it, just a few minutes ago.



You just stone cold busted Hutch, but he thinks he fooled you. Somehow.


HE would not be able to see though that brilliant lie. So he thinks that you can't either.


So stupid.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

No, it gives context that in the end you don't give a rat ass about what happened then, you just see this as a way of gaining power now. You dismiss any obvious hypocrisy on your part.

 

[Correll]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

He knows that. He just doesn't care. Because he is full of shit.

He knows that. He just doesn't care. Because he is full of shit

Not one thing I have stated is incorrect.

Dude. You just admitted that all that time you spent whining about their racism and WP beliefs, was just bullshit that had nothing to do with your real reason for hating.



So, why are you being such an asshole to the Southerns who want to have some regional pride? Now that your lie about "wacism" and "wp" has been shown to be bullshit.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

No, it gives context that in the end you don't give a rat ass about what happened then, you just see this as a way of gaining power now. You dismiss any obvious hypocrisy on your part.

BINGO. I just asked him what he real reason for being an asshole today is, but we both know he won't come clean.


Gaining power now. Yep, that is what these race baiting assholes are all about.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

Not at all.
My "goal" insofar as there is one with you is simply understanding your position. You have given all sorts of answers but none of them have addressed or denied the fact that the confederates were self avowed white supremacists fighting to retain their superiority and the privilege it provided.

In knowing that now, why would you ever choose to support the memorialization of such people?
Is the idea of white supremacy something you accept or reject?

 

[bendog]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

"No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard."
Exactly. The South chose to try the seccession longshot to keep slaves. The Lost Cause propaganda is bullshit. In 1861 slavery was seen as immoral. Even the Sothern soldiers without slaves fought for white supremacy to avoid free blacks. That's why the JIm Crow sttues have to go.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

Not at all.
My "goal" insofar as there is one with you is simply understanding your position. You have given all sorts of answers but none of them have addressed or denied the fact that the confederates were self avowed white supremacists fighting to retain their superiority and the privilege it provided.

In knowing that now, why would you ever choose to support the memorialization of such people?
Is the idea of white supremacy something you accept or reject?

and you ignore that 90% of white people at the time, including many of the abolitionists saw blacks and other races as inferior.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made

I'm making nothing. I'm stating fact.
It is "the crux of all this".
Slavery doesn't exist without the belief that whites are superior.
Slavery was the stated cause for seccession.

As always. Don't take my word for it. Take their own.
Read their articles of seccession.

 

[martybegan]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made

I'm making nothing. I'm stating fact.
It is "the crux of all this".
Slavery doesn't exist without the belief that whites are superior.
Slavery was the stated cause for seccession.

As always. Don't take my word for it. Take their own.
Read their articles of seccession.

Slavery was their economic system, they justified it using the White supremacy stuff, but in the end it wasn't due to evil, but exploitation.

 

[Faun]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

Not at all.
My "goal" insofar as there is one with you is simply understanding your position. You have given all sorts of answers but none of them have addressed or denied the fact that the confederates were self avowed white supremacists fighting to retain their superiority and the privilege it provided.

In knowing that now, why would you ever choose to support the memorialization of such people?
Is the idea of white supremacy something you accept or reject?

and you ignore that 90% of white people at the time, including many of the abolitionists saw blacks and other races as inferior.

and you ignore that 90% of white people at the time, including many of the abolitionists saw blacks and other races as inferior.

Derp....LOL...
Even if true.No one is trying to memorialize those white folks for actions taken in their racist beliefs, dope.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old ****.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

He knows all of that. He doesn't care because his goal(s) here is to race bait and troll.


He is a ******* asshole.

Not at all.
My "goal" insofar as there is one with you is simply understanding your position. You have given all sorts of answers but none of them have addressed or denied the fact that the confederates were self avowed white supremacists fighting to retain their superiority and the privilege it provided.

In knowing that now, why would you ever choose to support the memorialization of such people?
Is the idea of white supremacy something you accept or reject?

and you ignore that 90% of white people at the time, including many of the abolitionists saw blacks and other races as inferior.

and you ignore that 90% of white people at the time, including many of the abolitionists saw blacks and other races as inferior.

Derp....LOL...
Even if true.No one is trying to memorialize those white folks for actions taken in their racist beliefs, dope.

No, some of them are memorialized in spite of their racist beliefs, at least until your mobs get done with the low hanging fruit.

I wonder when we start banning the T-shirts of this asshole:

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made

I'm making nothing. I'm stating fact.
It is "the crux of all this".
Slavery doesn't exist without the belief that whites are superior.
Slavery was the stated cause for seccession.

As always. Don't take my word for it. Take their own.
Read their articles of seccession.

Slavery was their economic system, they justified it using the White supremacy stuff, but in the end it wasn't due to evil, but exploitation.

Slavery was their economic system, they justified it using the White supremacy stuff, but in the end it wasn't due to evil, but exploitation.

WTF?
The exploitation of chattel slavery for economic gain isn't evil?

 

[martybegan]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the **** would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made

I'm making nothing. I'm stating fact.
It is "the crux of all this".
Slavery doesn't exist without the belief that whites are superior.
Slavery was the stated cause for seccession.

As always. Don't take my word for it. Take their own.
Read their articles of seccession.

Slavery was their economic system, they justified it using the White supremacy stuff, but in the end it wasn't due to evil, but exploitation.

Slavery was their economic system, they justified it using the White supremacy stuff, but in the end it wasn't due to evil, but exploitation.

WTF?
The exploitation of chattel slavery for economic gain isn't evil?

Not by my definition, it's wrong, but again, I don't feel the need to impose my morals on people from the past.

I reserve evil for actual evil, not expand the definition for cheap political currency.