Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[JakeStarkey]

I have family members born and bred in LA, and not one of them will live in the crazy state.

Having said the above, I will admit the best soldiers in our Brigade were the four Cajuns from the Houma area in a platoon of mine. They were decent, UCMJ abiding soldiers who were amazing with weapons, terrain, climate, and all soldiering skills. And their word was solid.

 

[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?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I have family members born and bred in LA, and not one of them will live in the crazy state.

Crazy state?

 

[Divine Wind]

"American" means a citizen of the United States of America. If I renounced my citizenship and moved to Canada, I would be Canadian, not American.

The south left the US and started their own country. That means they were NOT Americans. You really cannot get more simple than that.

What elementary school did you teach history? Sorry, but they were still Americans. However, your attitude toward Southerners explains a lot about your mindset.

Le sigh. Please define for me what "American" means to you. And I grew up in the south, thank you very much.

Dude, again, if you really did teach history then fill in the blank: Confederate States of ____________.

An illegal government attempting to subvert the United States of _______________.

1) Leaving is not the same as "subverting" much less overthrowing.

2) Doesn't change the fact of what the "A" means in CSA.

 

[xotoxi]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Maybe, but conservatives don't riot and protest and destroy public and private property. Only leftists do that. The truth is that the company is scared of losing business if too many people know who they are. But its too late, everyone knows and they will probably be out of business when this is over.

The Klan, the ultimate Southern conservatives, did all that, fishyred.

glad you brought up the KKK. It was comprised mostly of democrats and existed in almost every state.

And these were the same democrats who started the civil war.

 

[rightwinger]

Agreed. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Southern states, not elsewhere.

The Emancipation Proclamation
The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

How did the 13th amendment work out?

Better than the Three-Fifths Compromise. It was ratified on December 6th, 1965, eight months after the Civil War ended.

What does that have to do with the fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in secession states?

Emancipation was a major political blow to the south. Not because they were losing their slaves but because they were unable to get Europe to support their cause if it was about slavery
European countries were not going to fight in defense of slavery

Emancipation proclamation was only the first step in the process. 13th amendment freed all slaves forever and by 1870 they had the right to vote

Coincidence?

Nice glossy PC coating over history. So why didn't Lincoln emancipate all of the slaves on January 1st, 1863? If the war was about slavery, then why weren't all the slaves freed until well after the war was over?

The war, caused by secession in order to ensure Southern slavery, became a struggle to keep states in the Union. And, eventually, slavery became the weapon Lincoln used against the South. He killed the reason for them to secede. He took step by step. He succeeded, and it would have been better for the southern states to not have seceded (heh).

The south overplayed their hand and lost bigly

Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery. He was probably going to be an obscure, one term President. He may have passed some legislation limiting the expansion of slavery, but couldn't have abolished it

By seceding and provoking a war, the South ended up losing their slaves within five years....it would have taken 20-30 years otherwise

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how Lenin,who is responsible for the deaths of millions, has a statue in Seattle that causes no problems for the left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Maybe, but conservatives don't riot and protest and destroy public and private property. Only leftists do that. The truth is that the company is scared of losing business if too many people know who they are. But its too late, everyone knows and they will probably be out of business when this is over.

The Klan, the ultimate Southern conservatives, did all that, fishyred.

glad you brought up the KKK. It was comprised mostly of democrats and existed in almost every state.

And these were the same democrats who started the civil war.

You mean the ultimate Southern conservatives that started the Civil War.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

But do you understand what the Hell you wrote above, Red? If you're trying to impress that standard on another, you should have been aligned with that standard years ago yourself.You've been correctly provided the definition of a traitor codified in the USC.

Does that definition fit the people memorialized by those statues in NOLA of traitorous conduct as defined under US law or not? Did they take up arms against the United States? Will you respond truthfully or demur with deflection, dance, dodge and dissembling?

 

[toxicmedia]

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 know the answer.

The Civil War wasn't even a rebellion. I was certain people in Southern States who decided they would try and take over that part of the United States.

Not sure why it needs any celebration.

The Confederacy is also symbolic of human slavery, which is bad.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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 know the answer.

The Civil War wasn't even a rebellion. I was certain people in Southern States who decided they would try and take over that part of the United States.

Not sure why it needs any celebration.

The Confederacy is also symbolic of human slavery, which is bad.

You have to go to college to learn to be that ignorant.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Maybe, but conservatives don't riot and protest and destroy public and private property. Only leftists do that. The truth is that the company is scared of losing business if too many people know who they are. But its too late, everyone knows and they will probably be out of business when this is over.

The Klan, the ultimate Southern conservatives, did all that, fishyred.

glad you brought up the KKK. It was comprised mostly of democrats and existed in almost every state.

And these were the same democrats who started the civil war.

You mean the ultimate Southern conservatives that started the Civil War.

Good thing Democrats today don't want to use skin color to deny people jobs or college. Oh wait........ THEY DO!

 

[Divine Wind]

....I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

Snowflakes. Snowflakes so unique, so special, their opinions trump everyone elses opinion, including all of history.

The fact we have a self-professed history teacher actively advocating rewriting history to become more PC is indicative of the problem our nation is facing.

I'm rewriting history? OK, I'll bite. Please explain what parts of Civil War history I'm rewriting, and please include links to sources backing up your claim. I'll be back after lunch to see what you have.

Characterizing Southerners as not being Americans is a start. Claiming the South started the Civil War when, as educated, unbiased historians know, the South seceded and it was Lincoln who started the Civil War by invading Virginia. Now you are advocating removing specific statues for PC reasons yet have no problem with supporting multiple slave-built buildings.

 

[Divine Wind]

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

you are missing the point. Lee and Jackson also did many good things for their people and the country. But they are denigrated on one issue only. Whereas you ignore the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves.

I was not comparing Davis to Buddha, I was comparing intolerant American liberals to the Taliban.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Claiming the South started the Civil War is correct, as educated, unbiased historians know, because the South seceded, fired on Ft Sumter, and only then did Lincoln called up the militia and began the suppression of treasonous insurrection. If Divine Wind tried to pass off his comment above as history in a college class, he would have failed.

 

[Divine Wind]

....I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

Snowflakes. Snowflakes so unique, so special, their opinions trump everyone elses opinion, including all of history.

The fact we have a self-professed history teacher actively advocating rewriting history to become more PC is indicative of the problem our nation is facing.

Divine Wind can't carry his points so the memes come out. Told you all so.

I see your Sense of Humor circuit breaker popped. You should have someone reset that for ya.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Divine Wind = I see your Sense of Humor circuit breaker popped. You should have someone reset that for ya.

^^^
^^

 

[bendog]

If it was the south trying to hang on to slavery, why was slavery not mentioned as an issue until two years into the civil war? Why was the north allowed to keep slaves for years after the civil war was over?

It was about slavery.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

not for all

Yeah, for all.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.


The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

People argue states rights, self determination, etc ... but it comes down to the fact that the states seceding wanted to keep slavery and knew the North would eventually end it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Divine Wind = I see your Sense of Humor circuit breaker popped. You should have someone reset that for ya.

^^^
^^

So are you agreeing with me about your sense of humor or are you now being hypocritical about your previous comment on memes?

 

[The Original Tree]

Dem states and Dem politicians trying to do what they can to destroy Dem legacy so the Dems can try to gain back power, by name calling, race baiting, cursing and making general asses of themselves.