Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[Theowl32]

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.

Hi marshmallow fluff. You are saying none of the 1.5% of the slave owners in this country were ever related to you?

Wow, lucky you I guess.

You don't want to discuss the evolution of the Trans Atlantic slave trade? How it was an extension of the well established Trans Sahara slave trade? Don't want to discuss that?

Thought not.

Fluffy white marshmallow.

You want to eradicate monuments that pay tribute to southern heroes, all while you admit you are proud liberal (a fucking democrat) who were the slave owners and founders of the KKK?

Oh, don't want to discuss that either? Just about the south and the confederates?

Here, lets listen to what a white fluffy northerner would have heard if you had to hear the old rebel yell getting closer and closer to your dandy ass.

 

[Ame®icano]

Divine Wind, your arguments mean nothing in the end.

The south seceded because they were afraid they would lose the right to control the sale of humans and their labor.

They were right.

Lincoln murdered the Old South with the great majority of the country yelling "yay!"

Democrats were not in that majority.

Can you prove that? The northern and western almost en masse and upper border democrats (a solid minority) went over to Lincoln's side when the South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter.

Lincoln opponent, Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas was pro slavery racist. He supported Dred Scott, and he declared that the DOI was not meant to apply to non-whites. Lincoln did not get majority of the votes (therefore majority did not yell "yey"), since he got 40% of the votes in the North and wasn't on the ticket in the South, while Douglas got almost 30% of votes.

They sure

did, buncum, when the south fired on Ft Sumter and northern and western dems rallied to the Union and Lincoln's call for militia.

They yelled 'yay' when the South died in April 1865.

buncum, Lincoln could never have waged war without the dems support.

And that proves what, that they were not racists? LOL

They were then and kept being racists ever since over and over, weather thru Jim Crow, KKK, segregation, opposing CRA, you name it.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

 

[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.

Hi marshmallow fluff. You are saying none of the 1.5% of the slave owners in this country were ever related to you?

Wow, lucky you I guess.

You don't want to discuss the evolution of the Trans Atlantic slave trade? How it was an extension of the well established Trans Sahara slave trade? Don't want to discuss that?

Thought not.

Fluffy white marshmallow.

You want to eradicate monuments that pay tribute to southern heroes, all while you admit you are proud liberal (a fucking democrat) who were the slave owners and founders of the KKK?

Oh, don't want to discuss that either? Just about the south and the confederates?

Here, lets listen to what a white fluffy northerner would have heard if you had to hear the old rebel yell getting closer and closer to your dandy ass.

Not luck. Just birth. All four of my grandparents were born in Ireland, and I'm a third-generation American. And you don't have to be a slave owner to be on the wrong side of history and morality concerning slavery.

If there were monuments to the Boston shipmen to dragged Africans from their home to Barbados, I would demand those get torn down. If there were monuments to the Trans-Saharan slave trade, I would demand those get torn down too. But again, and please try to pay attention because this is important to the discussion, NEITHER OF THAT APPLIES TO SOUTHERNERS WHO LED AN ARMED REBELLION AGAINST OUR NATION. That's like arguing I need to discuss WWII because this is about the Civil War. It's really, remarkably sad that you know you lost this "debate" and you keep screaming, "Nuh-uh! Look over there!" What's next, you going to bring up sweet tea, peaches, and pecan pie?

They are not Southern heroes. They are traitors to the United States of America. What else do you call someone who fought and killed Americans so they can preserve their precious peculiar institution — which wasn't even in jeopardy? Like today's militia nutjobs, conservative slaveowners back then believed any limit on what they wanted was tyranny. You can call a turd a sandwich all you want, but that don't make it edible.

I'll even say Confederate forces fought bravely and better than Union forces. The North won simply because it had more men and supplies, not because of any military acumen. I can't imagine what the average Southern soldier had to go through, the agonizing decision on whether to fight for slavery or look like a coward. But in the end, isn't it a conservative principle that you're responsible for your own actions?

So call me a fluffy white marshmallow all you want, Sparky. Because at least I don't have treason in my family tree.

 

[rightwinger]

The south had 4 million slaves
Ten percent of the US population was in bondage

... and regardless, you still support democrats.

The Democrats did not form as a party until the 1830s.....The issue of slavery predated them by 200 years

How that refute the fact that since its inception, Democrat party was racist and pro slavery?

The conservatives in the south were racist and pro slavery...they still are

bullshit. where do you post from, winger? where is your care facility located?

How do you think Trump got elected?

 

[rightwinger]

The south had 4 million slaves
Ten percent of the US population was in bondage

... and regardless, you still support democrats.

The Democrats did not form as a party until the 1830s.....The issue of slavery predated them by 200 years

How that refute the fact that since its inception, Democrat party was racist and pro slavery?

The conservatives in the south were racist and pro slavery...they still are

The only racists on the south were Democrats. The only pro slave owners on south and north were, you're guessing it... Democrats.

Now they are Republican

 

[rightwinger]

States Rights seems to be a common term used to justify denying rights to your citizens

View attachment 123303

While reparations and equality for only select minority groups appears to be the common term progressives utilize to justify denying rights to others. Otherwise Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups would have just as much, if not more, voice as the blacks and those supporting illegal Hispanics.

*****SMILE*****

Show me a single case where States rights was not used to deny rights to people

 

[rightwinger]

The Confederacy was formed to ensure slavery would be protected forever. They already had states rights, what they wanted was the right to keep 40% of their population in bondage forever
This was not a noble cause, it was not something worthy of admiration....it was one of the most horrific nations ever formed
It deserved to be destroyed

Yes. It's much better now that we've moved all that stuff overseas where the US owned companies can get away with paying their slave labor a dollar a day so they can ship their products back here to the Union through the free trade acts started by Mister Bill Clinton.

Wasn't that guy at the end there a Democrat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy being formed to protect the right to own slaves

 

[Kondor3]

If the generation that fought the American Civil War was OK with both sides erecting monuments to their heroes, that's good enough for me.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

No, you just have the logical fallacy bit down.
This is how the left avoids having to address the facts. They engage in propaganda, and when their information is blasted out of the water, they accuse their opponents of engaging in propaganda.

 

[koshergrl]

The Confederacy was formed to ensure slavery would be protected forever. They already had states rights, what they wanted was the right to keep 40% of their population in bondage forever
This was not a noble cause, it was not something worthy of admiration....it was one of the most horrific nations ever formed
It deserved to be destroyed

Yes. It's much better now that we've moved all that stuff overseas where the US owned companies can get away with paying their slave labor a dollar a day so they can ship their products back here to the Union through the free trade acts started by Mister Bill Clinton.

Wasn't that guy at the end there a Democrat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy being formed to protect the right to own slaves

No, it was formed to protect the right of property owners from having their property taxed and seized by feds without state permission.

But carry on with your alternate reality, and revisionist history.

 

[rightwinger]

The Confederacy was formed to ensure slavery would be protected forever. They already had states rights, what they wanted was the right to keep 40% of their population in bondage forever
This was not a noble cause, it was not something worthy of admiration....it was one of the most horrific nations ever formed
It deserved to be destroyed

Yes. It's much better now that we've moved all that stuff overseas where the US owned companies can get away with paying their slave labor a dollar a day so they can ship their products back here to the Union through the free trade acts started by Mister Bill Clinton.

Wasn't that guy at the end there a Democrat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy being formed to protect the right to own slaves

No, it was formed to protect the right of property owners from having their property taxed and seized by feds without state permission.

But carry on with your alternate reality, and revisionist history.

Which property was seized?
Why wasn't taxation and seizure of private property mentioned by states that seceded?
They all mentioned slavery as a reason for leaving

The confederacy was comprised of 40% people in bondage
How can you support that?

 

[Ame®icano]

... and regardless, you still support democrats.

The Democrats did not form as a party until the 1830s.....The issue of slavery predated them by 200 years

How that refute the fact that since its inception, Democrat party was racist and pro slavery?

The conservatives in the south were racist and pro slavery...they still are

The only racists on the south were Democrats. The only pro slave owners on south and north were, you're guessing it... Democrats.

Now they are Republican

That's what you lefties wish and that's what you saying, but it doesn't make it truth.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

States Rights seems to be a common term used to justify denying rights to your citizens

View attachment 123303

While reparations and equality for only select minority groups appears to be the common term progressives utilize to justify denying rights to others. Otherwise Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups would have just as much, if not more, voice as the blacks and those supporting illegal Hispanics.

*****SMILE*****

Show me a single case where States rights was not used to deny rights to people

So now you're saying that States rights have not been utilized to grant privileges to people beyond what federal law mandates?

Shall we discuss States granting the use of controlled substances in defiance of federal laws?

Shall we discuss granting marriage rights to a specific group of individuals while denying those rights to other groups of mature willing companions in defiance of the Civil Rights Act?

Shall we discuss granting illegal foreign nationals sanctuary in defiance of federal laws?

Shall we continue discussing dishonoring Confederate vet memorials in defiance of public law stating that they be considered veterans of the United States?

Seems to me you're only looking at one side of a two sided coin.

Should the United States Of America declare war against the current traitors who defy federal law?

Seems to me that's exactly what you're proposing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The Confederacy was formed to ensure slavery would be protected forever. They already had states rights, what they wanted was the right to keep 40% of their population in bondage forever
This was not a noble cause, it was not something worthy of admiration....it was one of the most horrific nations ever formed
It deserved to be destroyed

Yes. It's much better now that we've moved all that stuff overseas where the US owned companies can get away with paying their slave labor a dollar a day so they can ship their products back here to the Union through the free trade acts started by Mister Bill Clinton.

Wasn't that guy at the end there a Democrat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy being formed to protect the right to own slaves

It has everything to do with the Democrats, and other people in power, continued support of slavery by moving it outside of US borders.

Paying a dollar an hour, or more likely less, and utilizing children in other countries is slavery in all but name.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Ame®icano]

Not luck. Just birth. All four of my grandparents were born in Ireland, and I'm a third-generation American. And you don't have to be a slave owner to be on the wrong side of history and morality concerning slavery.

If there were monuments to the Boston shipmen to dragged Africans from their home to Barbados, I would demand those get torn down. If there were monuments to the Trans-Saharan slave trade, I would demand those get torn down too. But again, and please try to pay attention because this is important to the discussion, NEITHER OF THAT APPLIES TO SOUTHERNERS WHO LED AN ARMED REBELLION AGAINST OUR NATION. That's like arguing I need to discuss WWII because this is about the Civil War. It's really, remarkably sad that you know you lost this "debate" and you keep screaming, "Nuh-uh! Look over there!" What's next, you going to bring up sweet tea, peaches, and pecan pie?

They are not Southern heroes. They are traitors to the United States of America. What else do you call someone who fought and killed Americans so they can preserve their precious peculiar institution — which wasn't even in jeopardy? Like today's militia nutjobs, conservative slaveowners back then believed any limit on what they wanted was tyranny. You can call a turd a sandwich all you want, but that don't make it edible.

I'll even say Confederate forces fought bravely and better than Union forces. The North won simply because it had more men and supplies, not because of any military acumen. I can't imagine what the average Southern soldier had to go through, the agonizing decision on whether to fight for slavery or look like a coward. But in the end, isn't it a conservative principle that you're responsible for your own actions?

So call me a fluffy white marshmallow all you want, Sparky. Because at least I don't have treason in my family tree.

One thing you're omitting from your essay is that those "traitors" were too Americans. So any way you put it, it's part of our history. But that's not the point...

I've been all over Europe and Asia, and in a few places in South America and everywhere I went I enjoyed the architecture of monuments, statues, and building of the past. If not amazed, I would at least think about meaning of those objects and history behind it and people who sometimes spent lifetime to create it. I think that is not just me, but a lot of people hold that sentiment deep down and look at it as connection between them and previous generations.

Now, that link to back in time may be something glorious, or even something embarrassing, but weather one or another it something we hope not to forget. All those monuments are put up to ensure that we look back at the past and remember those who build the future "for better or for worse". Because, to forget successes or mistakes of our ancestors and to not learn from them, and let them disappear is something that only someone apathetic would allow. No protest, no anger, not even a feeling of loss, just apathy.

What government criminals are doing now in New Orleans is ensuring destruction of part of American history. Has anyone asked people what they think of it before they decided to do it? WTF, monuments are being destroyed because of their "connection to the South". If we are going to erase the history we don't like, or hate, we'll quickly find ourselves in the world isolated from our ancestors and history in general... and most important, isolated from remembering their mistakes and successes that we learn from. So what is next? Are we going to start taking down churches, because they have their share of dark history that should be erased? Or are we going to butcher ancestors of all those evil people that did that?

Not so long ago ISIS was doing the same thing, erasing the past they don't like, by leveling city of Palmyra. We were all disgusted by it few months ago, just to find out today that we're doing pretty much the same thing. That's fucking insane.

 

[rightwinger]

The Democrats did not form as a party until the 1830s.....The issue of slavery predated them by 200 years

How that refute the fact that since its inception, Democrat party was racist and pro slavery?

The conservatives in the south were racist and pro slavery...they still are

The only racists on the south were Democrats. The only pro slave owners on south and north were, you're guessing it... Democrats.

Now they are Republican

That's what you lefties wish and that's what you saying, but it doesn't make it truth.

KKK platform closely follows the GOP platform
Little difference

 

[rightwinger]

The Confederacy was formed to ensure slavery would be protected forever. They already had states rights, what they wanted was the right to keep 40% of their population in bondage forever
This was not a noble cause, it was not something worthy of admiration....it was one of the most horrific nations ever formed
It deserved to be destroyed

Yes. It's much better now that we've moved all that stuff overseas where the US owned companies can get away with paying their slave labor a dollar a day so they can ship their products back here to the Union through the free trade acts started by Mister Bill Clinton.

Wasn't that guy at the end there a Democrat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy being formed to protect the right to own slaves

It has everything to do with the Democrats, and other people in power, continued support of slavery by moving it outside of US borders.

Paying a dollar an hour, or more likely less, and utilizing children in other countries is slavery in all but name.

*****SMILE*****

You confuse Capitalists with Democrats

If you want to point the finger of blame for slavery.....you can start with the Capitalists

 

[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?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

The "lawfully" elected govt was tyrannical.

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?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

Wanting to keep the states together isn't tyranny. Jailing the opposition for simply having opinions, is. His generals killed and raped people, killed off livestock so they stay hungry and burnt their homes to the ground. THAT is.
I wasn't blaming the civil war on Lincoln. I was just saying his tyranny had something to do with it. Lots of things had caused it.
If they seceded, they weren't traitors, actually. I mean, think about it...

That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. I know. Some of those could be patriots. Just because they fought on a different side, doesn't mean they weren't. Again, some people were fighting FOR freedom.
No, people were fighting against a tyrannical federal government. Look at what Lincoln ACTUALLY did t accomplish his ideals.
I blame the start of the civil war initially on the south. The federal govt baited them and they took it. The north wanted war or collectivism.

 

[pwjohn]

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?

The answer to your question, if you can remember it, has everything to do with that slaughter perpetrated on a black church here awhile back by some white guy who happily waved the rebel flag around while burning the American flag.