BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 57,376
- 17,026
- 2,180
You don't think a City has the right to remove a statue from it's property?
Maybe Trumpybear should get his EO pen out an order Federal protection for ya'll beloved Confederate statues?
Robert E Lee & The Confederate Solider statue removed in Dallas
- Thread starter Truth1253
- Start date
You don't think a City has the right to remove a statue from it's property?
Maybe Trumpybear should get his EO pen out an order Federal protection for ya'll beloved Confederate statues?
Slavery existed in America 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed
Oh really.
What "Democrats" might this have been? Lincoln??
You know the CSA had no political parties, right? Who does that leave?
TRUMP [emoji631]
Amazing how diaphanous their attempts are at hiding the Democrat responsibility for slavery are.
300 years actually.
Also existed all over the Caribbean, Central America and South America in the same period, without benefit of "Democrats" at all. Far more Africans were imported to Brazil than to North America; amazingly they did it without "Democrats".
Issa
Gold Member
- Mar 30, 2017
- 8,726
- 1,367
- 275
I'm not a lefty nor a righty...got argument ?
Aldo Raine
Gold Member
Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.
That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.
Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.
Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.
Want an example?
Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:
That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.
That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.
The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".
The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population. However that monument was not "destroyed". It's in storage somewhere looking for a museum last I heard.
Here's another:
That plaque was placed on the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, by the same group that put up the vast majority of these revisionist history "Lost Cause" monuments, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), at the same time they were doing it (in this case 1917). This is part of the same mythology, that the Klan were nice guys deserving of "honor" and weren't getting their due in another piece of that revisionist history, the "Birth of a Nation" film, which was in turn based on yet another piece of Lost Cause revisionism, the novel "The Clansman".
Today that plaque is turned backward so its blank side faces the street.
--- it was not "destroyed", just turned backward by the new owner of the building, who declared it the town's way of "turning its back on" the Klan. You know who objected to that turning backward? The KKK, who meet there to "commemorate" their origins. Nobody else.
Last edited:
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
That's not what white supremecy means, dope.
For a quarter century before Katrina, African Americans controlled New Orleans. Lot of money for levees and other work to reduce the chances of what happened Billions of dollars never went to where the should. You have white corrupted azzholes. Its just that we are nit allowed to call African Americans corrupted azzholes. They kill more person per person then anyone. The statues are coming for their successes. Oh yes in deedee. The bottom line is to survive the worst. Trust in people can get you killed.
Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.
That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.
Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.
Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.
Want an example?
Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:
.
That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.
That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.
The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".
The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population.
MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 44,283
- 23,456
- 2,605
Indeed, they should have hung them high, starting w/Robert E. Lee.
For a quarter century before Katrina, African Americans controlled New Orleans. Lot of money for levees and other work to reduce the chances of what happened Billions of dollars never went to where the should. You have white corrupted azzholes. Its just that we are nit allowed to call African Americans corrupted azzholes. They kill more person per person then anyone. The statues are coming for their successes. Oh yes in deedee. The bottom line is to survive the worst. Trust in people can get you killed.
Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.
That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.
Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.
Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.
Want an example?
Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:
.
That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.
That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.
The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".
The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population.
This post is fucking hilarious, considering I lived in New Orleans before and during Katrina and you didn't.
Also quite the loose definition of the word "billions"".
Actually it was the Army Corps of Engineers found to be at fault for the broken levees, that was established in court years ago.
As for the statues, check the OP, which is about DALLAS, Check the Tiki Torch riots which were in VIRGINIA. Check any number of places removing statues/monuments in Tennessee, North Carolina, Minnesota, Montana, none of which are in "New Orleans". No sugartits, the statues came down as a result of this:
Which is also not "New Orleans". That begat a re-assessment of the whole Lost Cause Bullshit, which brought Nikki Haley out to take that flag off her statehouse in SOUTH CAROLINA. And that begat rethinking the allowance of Lost Cause propaganda transmitters on public property all over the country where the UDC had put them.
Geography is clearly not your forté.
That is actually a lie. Lincoln said He was strongly opposed to slavery. When the South begins the seating he said the entire reason for they're disagreement was that he believed slavery shouldn't be extended and they did.
And yes Lincoln's emancipation proclamation didn't extend to the north. Since the North was not in rebellion they were protected by the Constitution, which the deed Scott case had settled slavery was protected. In the United States we don't have a monarch. We have a president. Who has no ability to rewrite or amend the Constitution.
What he did do was as a legislature write anti-slavery legislation.
As president ended slavery where he could which would be Washington DC.
He made the only requisite for West Virginia to rejoin the union being that they passed a law to abolish slavery.
And he freed 3.5 million slaves through his emancipation proclamation in which many claim is the biggest overreach of a federal power in US history... To end slavery.
He also fought with Delaware to pass legislation to end slavery.
Then as the war was dying down, he began pushing hard using dirty politics to get support behind the 13th amendment, Fighting the past that through Congress before more slave states were introduced to vote it down. His influence on that 13th amendment was so large that even though a president has no official abilities to make an amendment, Congress asked him to sign that one, The only presidential signature on an amendment.
Yes he said the objective of the war was to reunite the union. And horace Greeley who received that letter, added the context that he believed to that letter was Lincoln's way of trying to smooth the path for his emancipation proclamation which was sitting in his desk as he wrote that response.
As for Robert E Lee he believed that slavery was "necessary" in his own words. He fought in courts to maintain control over the slaves of his father-in-law when they tried to fight for their freedom. According to his own slaves he was "the worst man I ever did see". He had to take a leave of absence because his slaves were revolting against his hard hand, Even going so far as to break the family tradition of not selling family members apart from each other. his slaves also wrote about the brutality of torture the endured simply for trying to become free.
In the war he wrote his wife about how after the war he would like to buy more slaves for their plantation, and in his letters with Grant, during a POW exchange said that Black American POWs would not be exchanged because they were "Confederate property".
One of the most awful acts an enemy of the US has attempted on American POWs.... To take them and enslave them.
A worse one was in another exchange with Grant, Grant had to threaten him to stop using black POWs as human shields in areas under fire.
He also allowed his military to go on slave raids into the US to enslave free Americans with no repurcussions, and promoted those directly in charge of mass executions of surrendering black POWs.
In the end he renounced his citizenship from the United States of America in order to wage a war that killed hundreds of thousands of American men women and children, for the side which expressly said it was fighting to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery.
I'm fine if we don't honor people like Robert E Lee, Benedict Arnold, the Ft Hood shooter, American Nazi spies, and OKC bomber who tried to kill Americans in America.
In the war he wrote his wife about how after the war he would like to buy more slaves for their plantation, and in his letters with Grant, during a POW exchange said that Black American POWs would not be exchanged because they were "Confederate property".
One of the most awful acts an enemy of the US has attempted on American POWs.... To take them and enslave them.
A worse one was in another exchange with Grant, Grant had to threaten him to stop using black POWs as human shields in areas under fire.
He also allowed his military to go on slave raids into the US to enslave free Americans with no repurcussions, and promoted those directly in charge of mass executions of surrendering black POWs.
In the end he renounced his citizenship from the United States of America in order to wage a war that killed hundreds of thousands of American men women and children, for the side which expressly said it was fighting to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery.
I'm fine if we don't honor people like Robert E Lee, Benedict Arnold, the Ft Hood shooter, American Nazi spies, and OKC bomber who tried to kill Americans in America.
Well Dallas was part of Texas which joined the Confederacy in their words "based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. "
So Lee was their military commander for that fight for their cause.
And likewise the fort Hood shooter considered himself an Islamic warrior before an American in his armed revolt. Granted Lee's was much more successful at killing Americans.
Like their VP said a week after writing their Constitution, "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".
That is what they stood against the USA for.
I agree. It is interesting that you would want to rewrite history to suit yourself when you say slavery didn't enter his mind. He wrote an article that he felt it was "necessary". He took time off from the military to put down a slave revolt at his plantation. He tortured slaves who tried to escape to freedom. During the war he said American black POWs wouldn't be exchanged since they were "Confederate property".
So my question to you is with that knowledge why would you want to rearrange history to suit yourself for a more PC version of Lee than the actual history of him?
the difference between George Washington and other presidents who owned a slaves and confederate leaders, is George Washington in those others fought for the United States, well the other is fought the deadliest war against the United States.
My thought is simple. If you took up arms against America, you don't get statues built in your honor on American govt property.
- Banned
- #296
You are confused Moon Bat. History is always confusing to Moon Bats just like Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.
Like all Republicans at the time he was only concerned about slavery as it pertained to the expansion to the west because that would give the Democrat power. Slavery was only a political tool to him. Most of his anti slavery statements were made in that context.
Emaciation was a military move to get more canon fodder, not freeing US slaves. Emaciation did not free slavery in the US.
Here is what he said about the Negroes and equality
“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”
Here is what he said about freeing the slaves
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Yes Lincoln did not want a war to end slavery. His opinion was that if he stopped it's expansion it would wither and die.
But obviously he wanted to end slavery as he did in Washington DC, West Virginia, throughout the South and then later throughout the entire United States.
He ran his campaign as a moderate saying he didn't want to end slavery, when his actual acts once elected were to end slavery. Then he screwed over the white supremacist a second time in his next election saying he didn't want to give blacks rights. Then in his inaugural speech, stuck it to those white supremacists AGAIN by immediately saying that he would want to fight for black suffrage.
being screwed over like that twice really pissed off those white supremacists and still does to this day. They still bring up his campaign speeches with anger of how his actions in office completely went against them.
As for the Emancipation proclamation being a military move that is correct. It was his only legal option to free the slaves. As for its purpose to fill his ranks, he sure did that poorly didn't he. Not one of those former slaves ever appeared on a draft board. If his goal was to fill the army it would make much more sense to create a proclamation that any former slave who fought for the union would be free. So to take that stance makes no sense and doesn't correlate at all with his fight for the 13th amendment to ensure their freedom after the war.
Your story only works if you delete history, and believe he was taking a very poor method of reinforcing his troops when MUCH better options were on the table
And you bring up his objective of the war. To reunite the union. That is the letter which he wrote to Horace Greeley with the Emancipation proclamation sitting in his desk. A letter Horace Greeley himself said was meant to try and sooth the reaction to his freeing the slaves.
But again you are talking objective, not cause. He said the cause was "One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves. Not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
Before the war multiple times he said the only difference between both sides was on the issues of slavery, in his first inaugural speech and in letters to leaders of the Confederacy.
Saying he was not anti-slavery doesn't match up with his actions. Doesn't match with his decision to run with the anti-slavery party (black Republicans as they were called), and doesn't match up with history.
Maybe in 100 years people will be using George h.w Bush's "no new taxes" statement in his campaign as proof that he never raised taxes. Or Obama's "you can keep your provider" as proof Obamacare never forced anyone to switch. Or you can look at the actual history of their actions instead.
Yes. If you read those campaign promises and see what he actually did, you can see why the pro slavery white supremacist crowd hated him so. Didn't he say he was against equal rights? Why is he now pushing for black voting rights as soon as he got voted into office? There was an actor at that speech who walked out of it yelling "that means ni&&ER citizenship!" In disgust. A week later he found Lincoln in a theatre.
- Banned
- #299
Lincoln was a piece of shit.
He was too weak of a leader to deal with the issues of secession so he reverted to war. He broke the truce at Ft Sumter (without even consulting his Cabinet) and he sent troops to kill American and destroy American homes and cities.
When the casualties got very high he came up with the Emancipation Proclamation to get the Negroes to enroll in the .filthy Union Army to kill more Southerns who just wanted their freedom for an oppressive government.
History is written by the winners. In this case the war was framed in terms of the moral issue of slavery but that was not the facts of 1861. Most of you stupid Moon Bats only have a Jr High History text book knowledge of the Civil War. You are very ignorant on this like you are on most things..
Those useful idiots in the North would have joined the military to "preserve the Union" but they sure as hell weren't going to fight for the Negroes.
/——-/ And what about Communist sympathizer MLK?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
California govt. declares its unlawful to protest downtown LA- Started by IDIOCRACY
- Replies: 0
-
Zone1 Numbers 12:3 “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were on the face of the earth"- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
-
Activist Greta Thunberg will be forced to watch unedited footage of Oct 7 as a condition of her release/IDF- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
Republicans need to learn how to make a Budget Deal, but will they? (Poll)- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
