Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[BlindBoo]

(and it was NOT about slavery).

Except that Slavery was the reason the southern states seceded.

In reality it was all about Slavery.

The reason the North went to war was that they seceded, not to end Slavery.

 

[reconmark]

Its controversial because its an attempt to delete or ignore a part of history that you don't like. People fought and died in the civil war for what they believed (and it was NOT about slavery).

Duh, yeah it was all about slavery and the CSA plainly stated so...

Just because we hold a different set of beliefs today does not make those in
the past evil or wrong.

Owning, beating, raping, killing, torturing, etc other Human is wrong irregardless of the time period,
Stop trying to defend the indefensible...

What's next? The Washington monument and the Jefferson memorial in DC? Both were slave owners. Why leave those monuments and take down Robert E Lee?

Did Jefferson take up arms and attack the U.S. with the treasonous southern rats???...if he did then you have a point and if he didn't...more bullshit from your lips...

What's going on in NOLA is our foolish mayor is trying to appease the far left radical base in order to get reelected. It may very well backfire on him, just like it did on his sister Mary.

The Far Left Radicals want symbols of treason and slavery removed from a position of adulation and housed safely in Museums???...well God bless them.

We cannot learn from the past if we pretend it didn't happen or rewrite it to suit our beliefs of today.

No , we can't learn from the past as well as racists with an agenda attempt to erase facts and suggest that the Civil War wasn't based on Slavery

Will removal of the statues reduce crime in the lower 9th ward and central city? Duh, no Mr Mayor. Why not spend that money on hiring more cops? Reducing crime might actually help you get another term.

Well, you may as well deflect because you haven't presented any facts as of yet...

 

[g5000]

Article 1, Section 9. The great debate between Calhoun and Webster. The Compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. The caning of Charles Sumner. Harpers Ferry.

Any of this shit ring a bell?

 

[Rustic]

Article 1, Section 9. The great debate between Calhoun and Webster. The Compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. The caning of Charles Sumner. Harpers Ferry.

Any of this shit ring a bell?

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

 

[Vandalshandle]

The first monument to be removed in New Orleans is not even a Civil War Monument. It is a monument honoring a White Supremacist movement, which started an armed insurrection against a duly elected city biracial government in 1874. the fact that the city placed this monument on public property in 1932 is disgusting enough. To make matters worse, they had to remove it at night wearing bullet proof vests. This is the most blatant racism I have ever come across that was sponsored by a municipality in the USA.

Battle of Liberty Place - Wikipedia

They didn't have to wear Kevlar.... nobody showed up or even cared. The monument was retarded and had been moved in the past back behind the parking lot of One Canal Place. I guarantee you 99% of NOLA didn't even know it existed.

There were, in fact, death threats to city officials over removing the monuments. And, whether or not someone knew it exists has no bearing on whether or not it should have been removed, I knew it exists, and New Orleans was not even the city where I was born and raised.

 

[g5000]

Article 1, Section 9. The great debate between Calhoun and Webster. The Compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. The caning of Charles Sumner. Harpers Ferry.

Any of this shit ring a bell?

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

Nope. It was about nothing more than slavery. To say otherwise is to be completely and willfully ignorant of our nation's history.

The racist Democrats' () reason for leaving the Union was over slavery. They said so themselves!

Any other complaints did not rise to the level of secession. Only slavery did.

 

[BlindBoo]

Taking them down is no better than when muslims destroy Buddhas in Afghanistan.

Gotta love a gross hyperbole in the morning.

 

[Rustic]

And just to think that slavery was the institution that was only put on by the south is the stupidity of selective history.
My ancestors had Centuries of owning slaves under their belts... The Sioux Indian tribes

 

[g5000]

I wear the Confederate flag because I am proud of my heritage!

Those old Confederates were slave owners and racists! Yeeeee-haaaaawwwww! That's my proud heritage!

 

[Rustic]

Article 1, Section 9. The great debate between Calhoun and Webster. The Compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. The caning of Charles Sumner. Harpers Ferry.

Any of this shit ring a bell?

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

Nope. It was about nothing more than slavery. To say otherwise is to be completely and willfully ignorant of our nation's history.

The racist Democrats' () reason for leaving the Union was over slavery. They said so themselves!

Any other complaints did not rise to the level of secession. Only slavery did.

So it had nothing to do with taxes and states rights...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The first monument to be removed in New Orleans is not even a Civil War Monument. It is a monument honoring a White Supremacist movement, which started an armed insurrection against a duly elected city biracial government in 1874. the fact that the city placed this monument on public property in 1932 is disgusting enough. To make matters worse, they had to remove it at night wearing bullet proof vests. This is the most blatant racism I have ever come across that was sponsored by a municipality in the USA.

Battle of Liberty Place - Wikipedia

They didn't have to wear Kevlar.... nobody showed up or even cared. The monument was retarded and had been moved in the past back behind the parking lot of One Canal Place. I guarantee you 99% of NOLA didn't even know it existed.

There were, in fact, death threats to city officials over removing the monuments. And, whether or not someone knew it exists has no bearing on whether or not it should have been removed, I knew it exists, and New Orleans was not even the city where I was born and raised.

Well I did as well, but I had no idea what it was. I walked by it dozens of times walking from One Canal Place to the House of Blues. It just looked like an old run-down monument. As for death threats, funny, it didn't make the news, or at least I didn't catch it.

Personally, I'd like to Mitch Landrieu expend his efforts on crime and the thousands of homeless.... they're on virtually every street corner and harassing the fuck out of the locals and worse, the tourists.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Sorry, but sometimes one issue is so severe that it dominates. I'm sure Lee and Davis were good people, but dedicating a memorial to their leadership of an armed treasonous revolt is sad. Mind you, *you* are welcome to do that on your own property. I would even defend your right to do so, I promise! My issue is with public monuments by the US gov't for people who fought against the US gov't.

I'm not ignoring the slave owning past, I'm just saying their good far outweighs their bad.

And taking down statues to traitors is not the same as destroying religious statues. Therefore, your claim is sad and untrue.

ok, those are your opinions, and you are free to state them as opinions, the problem comes when you claim them as facts that all must agree with. do you understand that?

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason ...."

US law since before the Civil War. Fact.
Confederates owed allegiance to the US as US citizens. Fact.
Confederates levied war against the US. Fact.
Ergo, confederates committed treason. Fact.

Sorry, but none of that is an opinion.

That code was written June 25, 1948.

That code was written June 25, 1948.

The first US 'law' regarding treason was this;

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court."

If you don't recognize it, read the US Constitution, Article III (ratified June 1788). It was first enacted in law by Congress in 1790 and read;

""If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.""If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars."

What objection do you have toward the latest codification that you have noted? Or were you trying to imply it was being applied with regard to the Southern traitors of our Civil War unconstitutionally ex post facto?

Thanks. So how is secession treason? Who invaded whom in 1861?

A lot of stuff was retroactive including fealty oaths, making secession illegal (which it is now), what constitutes treason, etc.

Thanks. So how is secession treason? Who invaded whom in 1861?

You are the one who responded to another's post regarding the statute on treason...this;

US law since before the Civil War. Fact.
Confederates owed allegiance to the US as US citizens. Fact.
Confederates levied war against the US. Fact.
Ergo, confederates committed treason. Fact.

It's typical of the far right's minions to move the goalposts when their assertions are confounded by facts to pivot to attempt changing the entire narrative being covered. I will not be taken off topic by this rhetorical tactic. So tell us all how the Civil War traitors of the South who took up arms against the United States were not traitors under the US Constitution and why these traitors of our Nation should be honored as heroes!

 

[postman]

Progressives always make history how they want it to be not how it really was…

Conservatives always outright lie about history. Such as renaming the civil war, the war of northern aggression, or pretending it wasn't about slavery, but was about anything else.

 

[Rustic]

hypocrisy defines the progressives

 

[BlindBoo]

Progressives aren't through trying to piss people off yet.

*****SAD SMILE*****

Conservatives aren't through playing the victim card and defending treason.

View attachment 123226


The one's playing the victim card are those demanding that the monuments be torn down and that Confederate soldier graves be desecrated against the laws that exist to honor those soldiers as US soldiers. All because progressives are snowflakes who have to find something to take offense too as they run for their safe place.

Just another slap in the face to the military by the progressives.

*****SMILE*****

The confederates were not 'US soldiers' except for the fact they committed treason inside US

don't be ridiculous

Except for the ones trained at West Point. Not the conscripts or volunteers but officers.....

 

[Rustic]

Progressives always make history how they want it to be not how it really was…

Conservatives always outright lie about history. Such as renaming the civil war, the war of northern aggression, or pretending it wasn't about slavery, but was about anything else.

Progressives want to overlook their past sins/even forget them, the fact remains it was not just about slavery although that was the cause that took up the headlines. To say taxes and states rights had nothing to do with the Civil War is selective at best. Also at the same time Indian tribes all over the Americas had countless slaves... my ancestors had centuries of slave ownership to call their own… The Sioux Indian tribes. Fact

 

[BlindBoo]

All the Confederate Monuments should be relocated to the zoo where monkeys can shit all over them

Nah, they were just products of their time. Time to put them to rest in museums.

 

[postman]

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

Your author takes out of context Lincolns inaugural, where he tries to keep the union together, by saying he wasn't going to start a conflict over slavery. But once ignoring slavery was no longer going to keep the union together, it became the reason.

 

[g5000]

Article 1, Section 9. The great debate between Calhoun and Webster. The Compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. The caning of Charles Sumner. Harpers Ferry.

Any of this shit ring a bell?

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

Nope. It was about nothing more than slavery. To say otherwise is to be completely and willfully ignorant of our nation's history.

The racist Democrats' () reason for leaving the Union was over slavery. They said so themselves!

Any other complaints did not rise to the level of secession. Only slavery did.

So it had nothing to do with taxes and states rights...

Exactly. "States rights" was the smokescreen for slavery. Just like "states rights" were the smokescreen for Jim Crow laws.

Did you read the declarations of secession? Of course you didn't.

Remember I told you slavery is mentioned 83 times?

Out of all those declarations, taxes are mentioned once. And guess what it is about:

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

Your laughter emoticon is the laughter of a willfully stupid creduloid.

So keep going, you ignorant fool. This is fun.

 

[g5000]

The pseudocon propaganda outlets absolutely depend on their rubes being utterly ignorant. This topic is yet another demonstration of this fact.

And as you can see, even after it being PROVEN to them they have been fed a bunch of horseshit, they get right back in line for more.

I do not understand the willfully stupid mentality which BEGS to be lied to. I really don't.