Why Does The Right Not Want Confederate Statues Removed?

[NYcarbineer]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The city council voted to remove the statue. You RW'ers can't shut up about who won the vote when it comes to the 2016 presidential election,

how about you just shut up about losing this vote?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Get someone with a suitable private property to put the statue on. He can charge admission to people wanting to look at it. Free enterprise!

 

[Doc1]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

 

[Kondor3]

Why does the Right not want Confederate statues removed?

Probably has something to do with a huge bloc of our countrymen who rebelled, became enemies, fought hard and honorably, were defeated, and then reconciled to us.

Probably has something to do with (a) for Southerners, honoring their valiant ancestors, and (b) for Northerners, honoring a gallant former enemy who rejoined the family.

--------------------------------------------------

The Union Army itself saluted their brave, defeated foes, on the day the Army of Northern Virginia laid down its arms...

Union hero Joshua Chamberlain tells the tale...

After Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, Virginia (above), on April 9, 1865, General Joshua Chamberlain was selected to oversee the formal parade and surrender of the Confederate Infantry on April 12. As the Confederates, under General John Brown Gordon, marched forward to relinquish their arms and furl their flags, Chamberlain gave an order that would give the terrible war a fitting end. He ordered his men to stand to attention and "carry arms," as a salute to the Confederate soldiers. General Gordon was deeply moved, and ordered his men to return the honor in kind. Here is Chamberlain's description of the scene:

"...The momentous meaning of this occasion impressed me deeply. I resolved to mark it by some token of recognition, which could be no other than a salute of arms. Well aware of the responsibility assumed, and of the criticisms that would follow, as the sequel proved, nothing of that kind could move me in the least. The act could be defended, if needful, by the suggestion that such a salute was not to the cause for which the flag of the Confederacy stood, but to its going down before the flag of the Union. My main reason, however, was one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness. Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured?..."

----------------------------------------------------

"With malice towards none, with charity towards all." - Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inauguration Address, March 4, 1865, Washington, DC

----------------------------------------------------

"...charity towards all..." has historically included allowing descendants of the Confederate armies to honor their heritage, including those who fought to defend their states.

After eight years with a Black President, Liberals, egged-on by Blacks who have always resented that heritage, have grown bold, and begun pulling down those memorials.

This is a Southern (mostly) White reaction to those who would disrespect and dishonor that heritage, which a more gracious and victorious North has allowed for 150 years.

The problem for Southern Whites is, like the long-lost Cities of the North, Blacks have bred like rabbits, and White Flight has isolated such memorials in enclaves of Blacks.

Perhaps Southern Whites need to move their Confederate statues and memorials to locations where they would continue to be appreciated, in White-majority towns.

Giving their own inner-city Black communities a faux sense of victory, as those continue to degenerate and rot on their own, the way Northerners have handled the problem.

Just move the frigging statues and memorials and, when necessary, move graves, to keep the Ghosts of the Confederacy in "safe zones" and away from the barbarians.

I'm a Union Man through-and-through, and my family lost close kin marching with Sherman when closing-in on Atlanta, as well as other Union Men who fought and survived.

But if the Union Army of 1865 could acknowledge the bravery and worthiness of their defeated foes and welcome them back into the family...

With the bitterness and anger and fear and heartbreak of four years of war, no more than a few hours behind them...

While allowing their former foes to honor the heroes of their lost struggle, as those veterans aged...

Then so can I.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

This is no longer a right. The statute removal has been approved by the city council.

 

[Doc1]

The city council voted to remove the statue. You RW'ers can't shut up about who won the vote when it comes to the 2016 presidential election,

how about you just shut up about losing this vote?

The Left's instinct for totalitarianism fascinates me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The city council voted to remove the statue. You RW'ers can't shut up about who won the vote when it comes to the 2016 presidential election,

how about you just shut up about losing this vote?

The Left's instinct for totalitarianism fascinates me.

So what would be the 'non-totalitarian' way of deciding whether or not the statue should remain?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

Is Adolph Hitler a American? We don't have statues of Emperor Tojo either. Nor Lord Nelson and he was a friend. But we do of Kamehameha! Why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

Is Adolph Hitler a American? We don't have statues of Emperor Tojo either. Nor Lord Nelson and he was a friend. But we do of Kamehameha! Why?

lol, so now you want to claim that WWII is not a part of our history?

 

[Doc1]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

This is no longer a right. The statute removal has been approved by the city council.

Again, not the point. I as an individual do not have the "right" to erect a statue of Hitler on public property, I do however have that "right" on my own property. Again you miss the point. The point here is censorship plain and simple. You support Government censorship, I do not.

 

[Doc1]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

Is Adolph Hitler a American? We don't have statues of Emperor Tojo either. Nor Lord Nelson and he was a friend. But we do of Kamehameha! Why?

So Rick would have a place to work and Magnum would have a place to drink?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where's the U. S. Grant statue in Charlottesville? Who's responsible for hiding that history?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

This is no longer a right. The statute removal has been approved by the city council.

Again, not the point. I as an individual do not have the "right" to erect a statue of Hitler on public property, I do however have that "right" on my own property. Again you miss the point. The point here is censorship plain and simple. You support Government censorship, I do not.

The statue is on private property?

 

[Doc1]

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

This is no longer a right. The statute removal has been approved by the city council.

Again, not the point. I as an individual do not have the "right" to erect a statue of Hitler on public property, I do however have that "right" on my own property. Again you miss the point. The point here is censorship plain and simple. You support Government censorship, I do not.

The statue is on private property?

Nope, my "right" involves my property, not public. What will you do if the next council votes to put the Statues back up? Further still, whether private or public lands the issue is censorship. You want it, I don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

This is no longer a right. The statute removal has been approved by the city council.

Again, not the point. I as an individual do not have the "right" to erect a statue of Hitler on public property, I do however have that "right" on my own property. Again you miss the point. The point here is censorship plain and simple. You support Government censorship, I do not.

The statue is on private property?

Nope, my "right" involves my property, not public. What will you do if the next council votes to put the Statues back up? Further still, whether private or public lands the issue is censorship. You want it, I don't.

I asked you what the 'non-totalitarian' way was to settle the statue issue, since you described the current process as totalitarianism.

Eh?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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!

It is difficult to see any rational basis for your definition of the term “Nazi”, being applied to those who oppose gratuitous censorship and destruction. Certainly, such opposition to censorship and destruction was never a defining trait of the original, historical Nazi movement.

You err, also, in assuming that just because your side is so much in favor of such gratuitous censorship and destruction, that our side must also be in favor of it, applied differently. No, this is a trait that belongs only to your side, not to ours. Ours is the side that creates and builds,not the side, that destroys.

And if our side were to degrade ourselves to the lows currently held by your side, to seek destruction and censorship of historical artworks depicting people and events not in line with our values, a statue of Martin Luther King would not be among our targets anyway. His ideal that a man should be judged by the content of his character rather than by the color of his skin is certainly much more in line with our values than with yours, which seeks to divide us up by race and pit us against each other.

 

[Doc1]

That is not the point, however if someone wanted to erect a statue of Hitler it would be within their "rights" to do so. It might get their asses kicked, but it is still within their rights to erect it.

This is no longer a right. The statute removal has been approved by the city council.

Again, not the point. I as an individual do not have the "right" to erect a statue of Hitler on public property, I do however have that "right" on my own property. Again you miss the point. The point here is censorship plain and simple. You support Government censorship, I do not.

The statue is on private property?

Nope, my "right" involves my property, not public. What will you do if the next council votes to put the Statues back up? Further still, whether private or public lands the issue is censorship. You want it, I don't.

I asked you what the 'non-totalitarian' way was to settle the statue issue, since you described the current process as totalitarianism.

Eh?

The "non totalitarian" thing to do is leave the statue where it is. That is also the "constitutional" thing to do. Eh?

Having said that as of right now they settled the issue. If the next council votes to put it back up will you support their vote?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

Is Adolph Hitler a American? We don't have statues of Emperor Tojo either. Nor Lord Nelson and he was a friend. But we do of Kamehameha! Why?

lol, so now you want to claim that WWII is not a part of our history?

Are you a dolt, or just play one on the internet?

 

[Doc1]

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?

When exercising one's "rights" no compromise is necessary.

Are we hiding history because we don't have statues honoring Adolph Hitler in our public squares?

Is Adolph Hitler a American? We don't have statues of Emperor Tojo either. Nor Lord Nelson and he was a friend. But we do of Kamehameha! Why?

lol, so now you want to claim that WWII is not a part of our history?

Are you a dolt, or just play one on the internet?

I'm guessing that this is rhetorical?