Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[g5000]

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still the progressives ignore the fact that Indians all over the Americas, before during and after the Civil War had slaves...
centuries of slavery as proof.

Still conservatives won't admit that the civil war was all about slavery as declared by the CSA and that Southern chattel slavery was unlike anything seen by mankind on such a scale...

Southerners at the time were progressive Democrats, and it was not all about slavery - slavery had the headlines but there were other reasons mixed in there such as taxes and states rights…

They never would have seceded if slavery had not been an issue.

They seceded before slavery was an issue. Slavery didn't become an issue until two years into the civil war.

Wow. I can't believe after I trounced you for this lie that you went ahead and repeated it!

Incredible.

You are a willful idiot.

It's Tipsy, you know.

 

[g5000]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

It's funny progressives think that Southerners invented slavery

Show me a progressive who thinks Southerners invented slavery.

Slavery existed for millennia.

 

[g5000]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

Positively schizophrenic. I have often asked pseudocons how their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I think I finally figured it out. In order to suffer from cognitive dissonance, one must have cognition.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

Positively schizophrenic. I have often asked pseudocons how their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I think I finally figured it out. In order to suffer from cognitive dissonance, one must have cognition.

I think the word you are searching for is cognition.

I hope this helps Mr. Brain Surgeon.

 

[g5000]

Virginia received the first English colony; the immigrants took possession of it in 1607. The idea that mines of gold and silver are the sources of national wealth was at that time singularly prevalent in Europe; a fatal delusion, which has done more to impoverish the European nations who adopted it, and has cost more lives in America, than the united influence of war and bad laws. The men sent to Virginia were seekers of gold, adventurers without resources and without character, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony and rendered its progress uncertain. Artisans and agriculturists arrived afterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race of men, they were hardly in any respect above the level of the inferior classes in England. No lofty views, no spiritual conception, presided over the foundation of these new settlements. The colony was scarcely established when slavery was introduced; this was the capital fact which was to exercise an immense influence on the character, the laws, and the whole future of the South.

<snip>

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, and we may almost say neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time. All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without families; the immigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality; they landed on the desert coast accompanied by their wives and children. But what especially distinguished them from all others was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; it was a purely intellectual craving that called them from the comforts of their former homes; and in facing the inevitable . sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.

The immigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency that had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 2

 

[Rambunctious]

Positively schizophrenic. I have often asked pseudocons how their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I think I finally figured it out. In order to suffer from cognitive dissonance, one must have cognition

Are you cognitive of the fact that slavery does still today exist in some Muslim nations?

 

[koshergrl]

Positively schizophrenic. I have often asked pseudocons how their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I think I finally figured it out. In order to suffer from cognitive dissonance, one must have cognition

Are you cognitive of the fact that slavery does still today exist in some Muslim nations?

The word now is cogniZANT lol. Cognizant of.

 

[g5000]

The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

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. 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.



Ever hear the expression "ni**er work?"



Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identified 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.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

 

[Rambunctious]

The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

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.



Ever hear the expression "ni**er work?"



Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identified 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.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

Okay copy and paste queen we got it. Geeez

 

[g5000]

Positively schizophrenic. I have often asked pseudocons how their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I think I finally figured it out. In order to suffer from cognitive dissonance, one must have cognition

Are you cognitive of the fact that slavery does still today exist in some Muslim nations?

And?

 

[g5000]

The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

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.



Ever hear the expression "ni**er work?"



Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identified 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.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

Okay copy and paste queen we got it. Geeez

How do you think I knew what book and what sections to quote?

You ignorant fucks should read that book some time.

Or any book.

 

[g5000]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

Positively schizophrenic. I have often asked pseudocons how their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I think I finally figured it out. In order to suffer from cognitive dissonance, one must have cognition.

I think the word you are searching for is cognition.

I hope this helps Mr. Brain Surgeon.

Did you read what I said, dumbass? I said cognition. I have bolded and made it red for you. Retard.

 

[Rambunctious]

How do you think I knew what book and what sections to quote?

You ignorant fucks should read that book some time.

Or any book

I read a really good book just last week.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Seriously, why can't you just leave them alone?

Better question: Why are they even there? Why did we spend public money on monuments to people who killed US soldiers over a state's right to enslave people?

What would your marshmallow white guilt ass be saying if there was a full historical story on slavery that extended back to the Trans Sahara slave trade?

Which, did not involve Europeans. What do you think about that? Should we include that history during negro patronizing month? Or should we only be reminded that negros are nothing but victim of whitey? That way they can remain mentally enslaved and robotic votes for the party of kkk and the party of slavery?

Oh and since we are on the subject, should the democrat party be eradicated since they were the party of the confederates, the party of slavery and the party of the kkk? No eh?

Oh....riiiiight. I forgot. The party of slavery is now the "party of freedom" and the republican party is now the party of slavery.

Even though in fact there has never been a Republican slave owner. Do you know a republican president was an honorary member of a native tribe? Yes, Calvin Coolidge member of the Lakota tribe. That poor Lakhota redskin probably pissed about that.


Oh, while we are on the subject, do you know how many native tribes owned slaves? Look it up. They also fought with the confederates. Did, did you want to discuss all of those things, or only limit it to the simple little notion and long tired narrative that white southerners are bad and all minorities are good?

Do these facts piss you off? Have your dandy little jaws tightened?

Jaw tightened? Nah, hard to have a tight jaw when laughing at your ignorant ass. Time to dust off my Batman gloves.

- This ain't about guilt. My family came over from Ireland in the 1920s. My ancestors never owned slaves. BIF!!!
- That slavery existed probably since mankind existed doesn't excuse Confederates turning traitor. BAM!!!
- That Africans practiced slavery on their own people likewise doesn't excuse any Confederates because two wrongs don't make a right. BOFF!!!
- That you call Black History Month "negro patronizing month" shows that you're just a racist asshole. ZING!!!
- That you think Black History Month is all about demonizing white people means you have never taught history and remain ignorant of it. SOCK!!!
- If Democrats were still advocating for slavery, then yes, they should be abolished. But that's not the case any more. KEPOW!!!
- I never said Republicans were the party of slavery. Project much? UMM ... KERPOWIE???
- It's sad that you have to bring in Native Americans to change the subject so you can have *something* to argue about other than Confederate traitors. ZAM!!!
- I never said white southerners were a bad, and I never said that minorities are good. I said Confederates leaders should not have gov't paid statues and monuments because they were traitors to the very gov't that paid for those works. UMM ... KERFUFFLE???

I see what you're trying to do. You can't defend Confederate traitors since they fit the literal definition of traitor. That means you need to 1) attack the source (that's me!) and 2) change the subject.

So you paint me as some white-guilt-ridden liberal who thinks all white people are evil and any person of color is the gold standard. That's not me. I don't want reparations, for example, because white folks today shouldn't have to pay a penalty for what *some* white folks did a long time ago. I also think blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and any other subset of humanity has the same heroes and dumbasses as any other group.

You also try to bring in unrelated facts about slavery when this wasn't even about slavery. Not really. It was about people who took up arms against their government because they guessed the gov't would be coming for their slaves. That Africans, Native Americans, Northerners, Southerners, or Babylonians had slaves is not germane. Anyone who owned anyone else is wrong regardless of their color. But again, two wrongs do not make a right.

Then why are people focused on white Confederate leaders? Because THERE ARE STATUES OF THEM PAID FOR BY CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY THEY KILLED. If there were statues celebrating anyone who committed armed treason against the US, I would be against it no matter their race or whatever.

 

[g5000]

Alexis de Tocqueville published Democracy in America in 1834. He describes how our slave population became concentrated in the South over time. He also foresaw that the only possible outcome was going to be massive bloodshed.

He even wrote an excellent passage explaining why the white slaveowners would have more difficulty accepting former slaves who were black as equals than did the slaveowners of antiquity accepting former slaves as equals.

And then there is this prescient passage:

I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United States at the present day the legal barrier which separated the two races is falling away, but not that which exists in the manners of the country, slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth is immovable. Whoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the Negroes are no longer slaves they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.

<snip>

In the South, where slavery still exists, the Negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labors and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate. In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the dust at pleasure. In the North the white no longer distinctly perceives the barrier that separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the Negro with the more pertinacity since he fears lest they should some day be confounded together.


A century later, after Martin Luther King had had great success with the civil rights movement in the South, he turned his eyes North. His friends and supporters expressed the belief to him that the struggle would be much easier in the North. But MLK knew different. He understood what de Tocqueville understood.

 

[g5000]

How do you think I knew what book and what sections to quote?

You ignorant fucks should read that book some time.

Or any book

I read a really good book just last week.

I was actually going to crack a joke about "other than books by your propagandists". I'm damn near psychic.

 

[Rambunctious]

I was actually going to crack a joke about "other than books by your propagandists". I'm damn near psychic.

Damn near...just funnin with ya. lol I haven't read it.
Yet

 

[Juicin]

Because what kind of dumbass would lionize traitors?

As far as I'm concerned flying a confederate flag is an act of rebellion, should be shot on sight

 

[TNHarley]

New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?

First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.

This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.

And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.

Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?

Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?

You have a very cliché outlook on the civil war. Sometimes, its like you copy your posts strait from a DNC email.

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?