Mobile Alabama Removes Statue of Confederate Without Notice

[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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Might as well link the whole thing.

Secession Documents: Mississippi — Civil Discourse

Might as well link the whole thing

Sure. It just goes on to list their grievances that are all based on slavery like they said.

 

[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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can understand how some might be upset.

View attachment 356756​

Without statues to shit on, pigeons are now shitting on the rioters.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 twat.

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.

False.

Why do you SJW always have to fucking lie? Are you just fucking stupid? Incapable to doing even the most basic research? Or you're just demagogues, fucking liars spewing any shit to further the party agenda?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Slavery is always evil. What the fuck is wrong with you? People should not own other people.

democrats are always evil, vile filth of the lowest sort. democrats kept people as slaves because they are psychopath piles of shit, then as now.

BUT if a democrat were to kill one of their slaves they would be charged with murder. democrats were NOT free to simply kill slaves, Slaves were protected from democrats by a plethora of laws,

The myth that democrats could murder slaves on a whim is just that, a myth.

Now you're a filthy liar, an agent of Communist China, a vile pustule on the rectum of humanity, but facts are available to those who seek them. democrats have not yet burned ALL the books.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do we have a whole lot of Mao statues in this country?

Dunno, but Dana7360 is from Communist China so it's preferences are obvious.

View attachment 346497

View attachment 356744

So fucking liar, the United States has 1.65 billion people in Gulags?

And we only have 330 million total people. Quite the trick, you lying Nazi pile of shit.....

 

[Canon Shooter]

I can understand how some might be upset.

View attachment 356756​

Without statues to shit on, pigeons are now shitting on the rioters.....

Gotta' be honest, I'm kinda' okay with that!

 

[dudmuck]

Do we have a whole lot of Mao statues in this country?

Dunno, but Dana7360 is from Communist China so it's preferences are obvious.

View attachment 346497

View attachment 356744

So fucking liar, the United States has 1.65 billion people in Gulags?

And we only have 330 million total people. Quite the trick, you lying Nazi pile of shit.....

Before your knee-jerk insults, you should check the facts.

While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1]

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NotYourBody]

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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.

Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.

Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

Slavery was an absolutely horrific aberration. I hope those who committed such heinous acts answered for their acts to whatever god they chose to believe in.

Don't ask me to answer for them, though...

 

[citygator]

If the you want to preserve history let’s just erect statues of Union Generals all over the south. Monuments to the 13th amendment.

 

[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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.

Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.

 

[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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?

So? Where did I ever say Lincoln gave a shit about blacks?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do we have a whole lot of Mao statues in this country?

Dunno, but Dana7360 is from Communist China so it's preferences are obvious.

View attachment 346497

View attachment 356744

So fucking liar, the United States has 1.65 billion people in Gulags?

And we only have 330 million total people. Quite the trick, you lying Nazi pile of shit.....

Before your knee-jerk insults, you should check the facts.

While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1]

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bull fucking shit.

Your country has easily 10 times the number of prisoners that America has, AND you imprison people for no reason.

{ According to the United Nations, more than 1 million Chinese Uighur Muslims are being detained in government internment camps. China calls these prison camps in Xinjiang province "re-education" facilities meant to fight extremism and separatism in the region. The U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China describes it as "the largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world today." }

Reporter on China's treatment of Uighur Muslims: "This is absolute Orwellian style surveillance"

More than a million Chinese Uighur Muslims are being detained in government "re-education" camps

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I've never owned a slave. My parents and grandparents didn't own any slaves. My grandparents fled Germany because what is happening in America now was happening in Germany then. They fled the Nazis, I should flee the democrats, but there is nowhere to go.

Slavery isn't an issue, it was resolved nearly 200 years ago. True evil now is leftism - the same democrats who bought enslaved Africans from the Muslims now want to turn the entire nation into one big prison camp. I can't change what was, only what is. Communism is a greater evil than Slavery. The burden of good men in 1860 was to stop slavery. The burden of good men today is to stop the democrats and their ChiCom masters.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery.

Did you figure that out all by yourself?

"Slavery is an abomination that affronts almighty God and cannot be sanctioned by a Christian nation." - Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

You see, you Bolshevik thugs are as ignorant as you are evil. I don't expect a Chinese national like you to know American history, you know only what your rulers feed you, and most of that is lies. BUT the Americans who pulled down his statue are ignorant turds who had zero knowledge of the man nor the complexities of a war that ended 156 years ago.

Slavery was morally reprehensible

So is the Communism you promote, for exactly the same reason. Both deny the god given right of people to determine their own destiny and success in life.

to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

And Americans went to war and ended slavery. So fuck off with your hate mongering.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 fuck 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.

THe Confederate Government stated policies were by today's standards WP.


You are assigning motive when you assume that the people commemorated by the various statues all were of a like mind.


You are assigning motive, when you assume that the motive of the children of the Veterans who put up the statues.


You are assigning motives, when you assume the motive of those who support celebrating those me and their service.


You are assigning motive when you assume my motive.


You are a race baiting asshole. I am passionate about you deserving to be treated like the race baiting asshole you are.


Men fighting against overwhelming odds to protect their homelands from invasion, deserve respect and commemoration.


YOu are a piece of shit.

They were fighting for the right to own other people. Period. They deserve nothing but disdain and recognition of how vile and evil they were.

So you think your straight friends should teach their children that slavery never existed, that there was no civil war?

 

[toobfreak]

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.

I GUESS THERE'S NO ANSWER FOR STUPIDITY.

• If removing the statue doesn't change anything, then WHAT IS THE POINT?
• The Confederacy didn't wage war, didn't cost any lives. They sought to break off from the North and go their own way because they didn't agree with the North. The North wouldn't let them because they didn't want to lose all that land and resources. THAT was the cause of the war. THAT was the cause of all the deaths.
• The Constitution never would have been signed without northern states making concessions over keeping slavery alive. Without that, there would be no USA, at least not as we know it. And when the Civil War ended, they made certain concessions to the South to placate them (which the monuments were a part of) as part of the settlement to end the war. So, we (the North) lied twice to the South to keep them in, and now have broken our pact with them.
• If nothing else, these statues serve as a historical landmark denoting prominent figures which countless people looked up to, whom remind us of the past. Tearing them down, far from doing anything about racism much less changing history, means they are no longer around to remind us of our mistakes that now we might more easily repeat instead. Having a statue denoting a defeated American confederate general doesn't mean you AGREE with what he fought for.

 

[Faun]

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery.

Did you figure that out all by yourself?

"Slavery is an abomination that affronts almighty God and cannot be sanctioned by a Christian nation." - Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

You see, you Bolshevik thugs are as ignorant as you are evil. I don't expect a Chinese national like you to know American history, you know only what your rulers feed you, and most of that is lies. BUT the Americans who pulled down his statue are ignorant turds who had zero knowledge of the man nor the complexities of a war that ended 156 years ago.

Slavery was morally reprehensible

So is the Communism you promote, for exactly the same reason. Both deny the god given right of people to determine their own destiny and success in life.

to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

And Americans went to war and ended slavery. So fuck off with your hate mongering.

You're fucking deranged, Fruitcake.

​

 

[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 twat.

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.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.

Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.

Terrorizing black folks for centuries is not evil? You cannot separate their treatment from their subjugation. Subjugation itself is evil.
I see now that black lives never have and never will matter to you.
I'm curious as to why you hold this opinion.