Why Does The Right Not Want Confederate Statues Removed?

[Damaged Eagle]

Would you compromise by having a plaque on each confederate statue reminding the reader that this person was a traitor who abandoned his oath in the name of defending slavery?

To bad for you that...

History records Robert E. Lee as a traitor to the confederacy because he defied Jefferson Davis and surrendered to prevent further bloodshed on both sides.

*****SMILE*****

 

[cnm]

Slavery in the South was part of historic growth and economic development, both good and bad came out of it, not just bad.

To whom did the good accrue?

 

[g5000]

Why do the progressives have an issue with historical memorials?

The pseudocons spend more energy on this forum trashing racist Confederates than the left. In fact, I can't recall any lefties starting topics to whine about Confederates.

But at least once a month, a pseudocon does.

So with all their whining about those old timey Democrats, why is the Right getting upset at taking down an old Democrat statue? Why are they defending those racists?

Hmmmmm?

I don't like to see Americans killing each other over statues.
I also don't like seeing American history erased in the name of Political Correctness. There are hundreds of Civil War memorials around the country.
Leave them be, they won't run you over or shoot you.

It seems very important to the Nazis that we not tear down the statues of those Democrats.

Why is this?

Would those same Nazis show up from all over the country to defend a statue of Martin Luther King?

Nope!

 

[emilynghiem]

I mean, at least twice a month, the pseudocons on this forum start topics to tell us that Confederates were racist Democrats and bad, bad, bad people.


So why is the Right defending those statues of evil Democrats? Hmmmm? Why were they sending out of state protesters to Virginia? Hmmmm?


Oftentimes, two pseudocons will start the same kind of topic on the same day. It's almost as if someone is telling all the tards this shit on a Tard Network.


So why is the Right defending a Democrat statue? Why?

History still needs to be looked at thats why. Not erased. It's a concept probably way beyond you and I doubt if it can be explained to you. There are many levels on why retaining symbols of history are important regardless of whether they are good or bad to some people.

Would you compromise by having a plaque on each confederate statue reminding the reader that this person was a traitor who abandoned his oath in the name of defending slavery?

I wouldnt be opposed to a plaque giving that sort of historical context at all, though It was up to the Union government at the time to label those generals as traitors. They were fighting for the wrong cause but they were fighting in uniform for their own confederate government. If anything I think the statues make a good reminder of how we were once divided. I'm not pro Confederate at all by the way, I've lived in California my entire life, I would just like to be fair about this, is all. I do also know that the ACLU will defend an artists right to put up paintings or sculptures mocking God or Christ even though it may offend millions of Christians and they protest it. That may be a double standard there.

In Texas, where there are annual report enactments of the Battle of San jacinto, both the Tejano historic preservationists and Texas historic preservationists honor their war heroes and leaders as historical figures. General Sam Houston let Santa Ana go after the surrender. The two groups do not disrespect and seek to remove the other as pro or anti racist. The Mexican govt was so corrupt and oppressive even Mexicans fought on the side of freedom. We still gained from the independence won, everyone benefited. I wish we had that spirit today in politics instead of baiting and exploiting division for gain in the media and partisan campaigns . Very sad we stand to lose history because of selfish small mindedness, instead of respect for all cultures as our historic preservationists live by.

Hats off to the historic heroes who embrace all the contributions and sacrifices instead of seeking to wipe them out for political pandering and baiting. Shame on those who are so afraid to learn from history they end up repeating the same mistakes they criticize.

 

[g5000]

I mean, at least twice a month, the pseudocons on this forum start topics to tell us that Confederates were racist Democrats and bad, bad, bad people.


So why is the Right defending those statues of evil Democrats? Hmmmm? Why were they sending out of state protesters to Virginia? Hmmmm?


Oftentimes, two pseudocons will start the same kind of topic on the same day. It's almost as if someone is telling all the tards this shit on a Tard Network.


So why is the Right defending a Democrat statue? Why?

History still needs to be looked at thats why. Not erased. It's a concept probably way beyond you and I doubt if it can be explained to you. There are many levels on why retaining symbols of history are important regardless of whether they are good or bad to some people.

Would you compromise by having a plaque on each confederate statue reminding the reader that this person was a traitor who abandoned his oath in the name of defending slavery?

I wouldnt be opposed to a plaque giving that sort of historical context at all, though It was up to the Union government at the time to label those generals as traitors. They were fighting for the wrong cause but they were fighting in uniform for their own confederate government. If anything I think the statues make a good reminder of how we were once divided. I'm not pro Confederate at all by the way, I've lived in California my entire life, I would just like to be fair about this, is all. I do also know that the ACLU will defend an artists right to put up paintings or sculptures mocking God or Christ even though it may offend millions of Christians and they protest it. That may be a double standard there.

In Texas, where there are annual report enactments of the Battle of San jacinto, both the Tejano historic preservationists and Texas historic preservationists honor their war heroes and leaders as historical figures. General Sam Houston let Santa Ana go after the surrender. The two groups do not disrespect and seek to remove the other as pro or anti racist. The Mexican govt was so corrupt and oppressive even Mexicans fought on the side of freedom. We still gained from the independence won, everyone benefited. I wish we had that spirit today in politics instead of baiting and exploiting division for gain in the media and partisan campaigns . Very sad we stand to lose history because of selfish small mindedness, instead of respect for all cultures as our historic preservationists live by.

Hats off to the historic heroes who embrace all the contributions and sacrifices instead of seeking to wipe them out for political pandering and baiting. Shame on those who are so afraid to learn from history they end up repeating the same mistakes they criticize.

So we should build statues of Hitler?

 

[g5000]

I'm sure the out-of-state right wingers who went to Virginia to protect the racist Democrat statue would LOVE to have us build statues of Hitler.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I mean, at least twice a month, the pseudocons on this forum start topics to tell us that Confederates were racist Democrats and bad, bad, bad people.


So why is the Right defending those statues of evil Democrats? Hmmmm? Why were they sending out of state protesters to Virginia? Hmmmm?


Oftentimes, two pseudocons will start the same kind of topic on the same day. It's almost as if someone is telling all the tards this shit on a Tard Network.


So why is the Right defending a Democrat statue? Why?

Because 157 years ago Democrats where ‘good’ – defenders of bigotry, racism, and hate.

Today Republicans have taken up the defense of bigotry, racism, and hate.

 

[g5000]

Slavery in the South was part of historic growth and economic development, both good and bad came out of it, not just bad.

A total crock of shit. Slavery severely inhibited the economic growth of the South and made Southern white men lazy.

Here, read this contemporary account:

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls.37 These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay the slaves whom they employ, but they derive small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, but they are purchased only when they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as well as in manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive years of youth, in sickness as well as in health. Payment must equally be made in order to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman receives his wages in money; the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum and appears to enrich only him who receives it; but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.38

The influence of slavery extends still further: it affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why do the progressives have an issue with historical memorials?

The pseudocons spend more energy on this forum trashing racist Confederates than the left. In fact, I can't recall any lefties starting topics to whine about Confederates.

But at least once a month, a pseudocon does.

So with all their whining about those old timey Democrats, why is the Right getting upset at taking down an old Democrat statue? Why are they defending those racists?

Hmmmmm?

I don't like to see Americans killing each other over statues.
I also don't like seeing American history erased in the name of Political Correctness. There are hundreds of Civil War memorials around the country.
Leave them be, they won't run you over or shoot you.

It seems very important to the Nazis that we not tear down the statues of those Democrats.

Why is this?

Would those same Nazis show up from all over the country to defend a statue of Martin Luther King?

Nope!

So now I'm a Nazi?

My families heritage is 100% German on all sides and my family served filling US uniforms during both World Wars. The largest wars of brother against brother considering well over half of this country was of German-American descent when those World Wars happened. It took a discriminatingly bigoted progressive Democrat to institute the Sedition Laws after the first war to attempt to take away my heritage.

I find it more likely that it'll be a discriminatingly bigoted progressive Democrat who'll demand that the statue of Martin Luther King should be torn down because it doesn't represent their idea of progress and the condemnation of white folk that they demand.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Muhammed]

I mean, at least twice a month, the pseudocons on this forum start topics to tell us that Confederates were racist Democrats and bad, bad, bad people.


So why is the Right defending those statues of evil Democrats? Hmmmm? Why were they sending out of state protesters to Virginia? Hmmmm?


Oftentimes, two pseudocons will start the same kind of topic on the same day. It's almost as if someone is telling all the tards this shit on a Tard Network.


So why is the Right defending a Democrat statue? Why?

It's art.

 

[MarathonMike]

Why do the progressives have an issue with historical memorials?

The pseudocons spend more energy on this forum trashing racist Confederates than the left. In fact, I can't recall any lefties starting topics to whine about Confederates.

But at least once a month, a pseudocon does.

So with all their whining about those old timey Democrats, why is the Right getting upset at taking down an old Democrat statue? Why are they defending those racists?

Hmmmmm?

I don't like to see Americans killing each other over statues.
I also don't like seeing American history erased in the name of Political Correctness. There are hundreds of Civil War memorials around the country.
Leave them be, they won't run you over or shoot you.

It seems very important to the Nazis that we not tear down the statues of those Democrats.

Why is this?

Would those same Nazis show up from all over the country to defend a statue of Martin Luther King?

Nope!

I don't know any Nazis and don't care what they think.

 

[DJT for Life]

Current American Army Bases named after Confederate Generals.

Camp Blanding
Fort Benning (Home of the Infantry School, The Army Rangers and the
American Paratroopers)
Fort Gordon (Home of the Military Police)
Fort Stewart (Home of the 24th Mech Div)
Fort Polk
Camp Beauregard
Fort Bragg (Home of the 82nd ABN and the Green Beret)
Fort Jackson
Fort Hood (Home of the American III Corps [1st & 3rd Armor] & 1st CAV)
Fort A.P. Hill
Fort Eustis
Fort Lee
Fort Pickett

 

[g5000]

I mean, at least twice a month, the pseudocons on this forum start topics to tell us that Confederates were racist Democrats and bad, bad, bad people.


So why is the Right defending those statues of evil Democrats? Hmmmm? Why were they sending out of state protesters to Virginia? Hmmmm?


Oftentimes, two pseudocons will start the same kind of topic on the same day. It's almost as if someone is telling all the tards this shit on a Tard Network.


So why is the Right defending a Democrat statue? Why?

A better question would be why do those of you on the left wrong want to destroy works of historical art? It seems that your kind are not that much unlike the Taliban, who were responsible for destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

Would all those out of state right wingers come all the way to Virginia to defend a statue of Martin Luther King?

Nope!

They only care about statues of old racist Democrats!

Why is that?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why do the progressives have an issue with historical memorials?

The pseudocons spend more energy on this forum trashing racist Confederates than the left. In fact, I can't recall any lefties starting topics to whine about Confederates.

But at least once a month, a pseudocon does.

So with all their whining about those old timey Democrats, why is the Right getting upset at taking down an old Democrat statue? Why are they defending those racists?

Hmmmmm?

I don't like to see Americans killing each other over statues.
I also don't like seeing American history erased in the name of Political Correctness. There are hundreds of Civil War memorials around the country.
Leave them be, they won't run you over or shoot you.

It seems very important to the Nazis that we not tear down the statues of those Democrats.

Why is this?

Would those same Nazis show up from all over the country to defend a statue of Martin Luther King?

Nope!

Unfortunately Martin Luther King although an alcoholic, whoremonger, plaigiarist and probably embezzler was also a historical figure. Although if you want the honorable southern generals presented in context, shouldn't we put MLK in context too?

 

[g5000]

Current American Army Bases named after Confederate Generals.

Camp Blanding
Fort Benning (Home of the Infantry School, The Army Rangers and the
American Paratroopers)
Fort Gordon (Home of the Military Police)
Fort Stewart (Home of the 24th Mech Div)
Fort Polk
Camp Beauregard
Fort Bragg (Home of the 82nd ABN and the Green Beret)
Fort Jackson
Fort Hood (Home of the American III Corps [1st & 3rd Armor] & 1st CAV)
Fort A.P. Hill
Fort Eustis
Fort Lee
Fort Pickett

All Democrats.

And here someone was claiming on this very forum just yesterday that Democrats never built anything!

Hmmmm...

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't care about the statues personally. But i certain my understand wanting to preserve history.

The Roman Empire was built on slaves. They were often brutal and cruel. Should we go around Europe removing traces of the Empire? Demolish the Colosseum?

Should we destroy Auschwitz since it was a Nazi death camp?

Or should we learn from history good and bad?

 

[g5000]

Why do the progressives have an issue with historical memorials?

The pseudocons spend more energy on this forum trashing racist Confederates than the left. In fact, I can't recall any lefties starting topics to whine about Confederates.

But at least once a month, a pseudocon does.

So with all their whining about those old timey Democrats, why is the Right getting upset at taking down an old Democrat statue? Why are they defending those racists?

Hmmmmm?

I don't like to see Americans killing each other over statues.
I also don't like seeing American history erased in the name of Political Correctness. There are hundreds of Civil War memorials around the country.
Leave them be, they won't run you over or shoot you.

It seems very important to the Nazis that we not tear down the statues of those Democrats.

Why is this?

Would those same Nazis show up from all over the country to defend a statue of Martin Luther King?

Nope!

Unfortunately Martin Luther King although an alcoholic, whoremonger, plaigiarist and probably embezzler was also a historical figure. Although if you want the honorable southern generals presented in context, shouldn't we put MLK in context too?

Wait. An alcholic, whoremonger, plagiarist, embezzler? Is that why pseudocons have tried to claim MLK was a Republican so much?

Those out of state right wingers would never come to Virginia to defend a statue of MLK.

But they came to defend a racist Democrat. Why is that? It makes no sense!

 

[g5000]

It seems I have stumped the pseudocons.

Maybe the next time they start a topic or make a post about those old racist Democrats in the next few days, we can ask them this question again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How long do you imagine the reenactments will be allowed?

The American Taliban is destroying our history. But they can't fully extinguish it.

 

[g5000]

I don't care about the statues personally. But i certain my understand wanting to preserve history.

The Roman Empire was built on slaves. They were often brutal and cruel. Should we go around Europe removing traces of the Empire? Demolish the Colosseum?

Should we destroy Auschwitz since it was a Nazi death camp?

Or should we learn from history good and bad?

So you agree those Democrats of the Old South are up there with Auschwitz, I see. Is that why the right wingers flooded to Virginia to defend them?

They wouldn't do the same for Republican Martin Luther King.

So this bullshit theory about preserving history is just that. Bullshit.

It's about protecting the memory of mass murdering Democrats for some reason.