Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[Divine Wind]

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.

They are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams!

 

[Divine Wind]

Le sigh. One. Last. Time.

Those buildings did not kill US soldiers, did they? They don't fit the legal definition of treason, do they?

I forget the term, but you're taking one argument to an illogical extreme so you can have a better chance of being correct. That's a fallacy. What's next, complaining that I don't hate cotton because slaves had to pick it? Hating boats because some were slave ships?

My original point is this: I don't get why people are upset over removing monuments to Confederate leaders because they committed treason against the US gov't that paid for those monuments.

Lemme guess, your history as a history teacher was being the Teacher's assistant in a 5th grade history class. How close am I?

Slaves died making those buildings. By your standards, they are an offensive reminder of slavery and, therefore, must be taken down and hidden away.

You keep claiming treason where every example you've posted citing treason was post-Civil War.

If you really are a historian, then you know Shelby Foote's comments about the Civil War and how Americans thought about "the United States" before the Civil War and after. While you seem very young, I went to grade school in the 1960s. Even then, people thought about their state like football or baseball fans think about their team.

Robert E. Lee thought secession was a mistake, but he also felt it was his duty to serve his country, meaning Virginia. That's how people thought in those days and for several decades after. It's only in the last few decades that Americans finally came to think of the Federal government over their state government.

Looking at the EU, we see a situation not unlike the US pre-1861; a small weak "federal" government with little power of fairly autonomous states linked by an economic and political agreement. Britain is now "seceding" from that agreement.

All this discussion is interesting, but well worn. Did the states have a right to secede? Yes. Despite being wrong and acting without proper authority, was it right for President Lincoln to suspend Constitutional rights and force the secessionists back into the Union? As world events played out, I think we're better off that he did.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

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?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

What you just posted implies states rights, dufus.
If you read the text from the whole discussion in SC, you would understand they were pretty specific in blaming lincolns words on how he couldn't have half the country doing something the rest of the country didn't do. The northern states had all passed laws outlawing slavery while the south didn't. They tried to force state compliance.
Also, look at those eastern TN soldiers who left the Union to help the confederates because Lincoln was jailing their brothers, killing their livestock and raping their sisters.
Give me a fucking BREAK

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Like I said, it's just a diversion from Mitch Landrieu's failed mayoralship. Thousands of homeless and record crime. So yeah, let's move some statues!

 

[rightwinger]

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

The election of Lincoln set off a panic throughout the south.....Lincoln is going to take our slaves away, we had better secede to ensure we can keep them forever

Slavery was going to eventually end even in a Confederate America. What they did was accelerate the process and kill 600,000 Americans. The men who caused that should not be honored

 

[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.

What you just posted implies states rights, dufus.
If you read the text from the whole discussion in SC, you would understand they were pretty specific in blaming lincolns words on how he couldn't have half the country doing something the rest of the country didn't do. The northern states had all passed laws outlawing slavery while the south didn't. They tried to force state compliance.
Also, look at those eastern TN soldiers who left the Union to help the confederates because Lincoln was jailing their brothers, killing their livestock and raping their sisters.
Give me a fucking BREAK

Slavery was a state right, doofus.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

What you just posted implies states rights, dufus.
If you read the text from the whole discussion in SC, you would understand they were pretty specific in blaming lincolns words on how he couldn't have half the country doing something the rest of the country didn't do. The northern states had all passed laws outlawing slavery while the south didn't. They tried to force state compliance.
Also, look at those eastern TN soldiers who left the Union to help the confederates because Lincoln was jailing their brothers, killing their livestock and raping their sisters.
Give me a fucking BREAK

Slavery was a state right, doofus.

Think about WTF you just said..
Not to mention EVERYTHING else. Your clichés are boring. Get some new material, gramps.

 

[MrShangles]

Now that it looks like we are removing all references to slavery , will blacks ( that had nothing to do with it) finally stop bringing it up. If they would shut their mouths, people only notice the monuments when blacks start running their mouths.
Y'all could have monuments in your hood, but y'all always bout F-n shit up. And if you can't tell, I'm almost as racist as black folks. 1% are good 99% racist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

The election of Lincoln set off a panic throughout the south.....Lincoln is going to take our slaves away, we had better secede to ensure we can keep them forever

Slavery was going to eventually end even in a Confederate America. What they did was accelerate the process and kill 600,000 Americans. The men who caused that should not be honored

You're ignorance of history is staggering. Neither Lee or Beauregard caused the civil war. Geeze Louise. The liberty monument I have no problem removing, Shit, it was nestled back behind the parking lot of an office tower. Nobody even knew where it was. Anyway, it commemorated something absurd. The Lee and Beauregard statues are iconic NOLA. This is fucking retarded.

 

[Divine Wind]

....Slavery was going to eventually end even in a Confederate America. What they did was accelerate the process and kill 600,000 Americans. The men who caused that should not be honored

Maybe slavery would eventually end. It's a hypothetical.

As for killing "600,000 Americans", it was more than that. You should ask wjmacguffin since he believes only half of those casualties were "Americans". The rest were rebel scum according to him.

Civil War Casualties

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They should remove the statue of Columbus in Columbus Circle.. fucking white invader.

 

[g5000]

First you say this:

Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do.

And then you give us an example of looking stupid:

The civil war was not about slavery

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[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!

 

[bendog]

I don't really see the controversy over monuments about the civil war. One of the NOLA monuments was to the movement to end voting rights, and basic civil rights, of blacks AFTER the civil war. I don't think there should be any controversy about Jim Crow and the stain that puts on the South. We still see that in voting rights, and to be brutally honest here in Mississippi I think the white gop policitians show MORE concern over excluding votes based on race than we see in other places where the gop seeks to disenfranchise voters more likely to be dems.

But, imo, we're better off looking honestly at want antebellum society was like in the South. Slavery is indefensible. But it was institutionalized. It'd been around for more than 100 years. What was the alternative? Even among the Southern generals there were differences of opinion as to what society should do, and how quickly. And even in 1938 and even 1950 decent white people were not denying the need for equal rights but how to get there and how long. There were shades of gray (-: And that is relevant today in terms of leadership in inner cities where blacks are predominantly the victims of other blacks ... both in the North and South. Here in Jackson Mississippi at one time we had a higher murder per capita rate that Chicago. Atlanta didn't have a unified racial government until Maynard Jackson. And in NOLA it's Mary Landrieu's little brother who is pushing the change.

 

[Rustic]

Funny how Lenin,who is responsible for the deaths of millions, has a statue in Seattle that causes no problems for the left.
View attachment 123243

Yeah, progressives always pick out and worship the most fucked up of people…

 

[boilermaker55]

What is extremely bizarre is still having a controversy over the Civil War. If the North had done the right thing and taken all the land from the treasonous bastards and left them homeless and without. To the victor goes the spoils.
Every traitor needed to have all of their domains taken from them.

Great American General.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They were racist Democrats! Remember, rubes?

Nobody's defending anyone. Go back to sleep Snowflake. Personally, I'm just ridiculing people who are suddenly offended by fucking statues that nobody gave a shit about for 100+ years.

 

[bendog]

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

I don't get it either. Not every southerner was satan and not every northerner was Jesus tap dancing Christ (-: