Confederate Memorial at Arlington will be removed despite GOP opposition

[Synthaholic]

Cool. Then no Potato monuments, for sure.

Except in idaho.

 

[kyzr]

Republicans insist on using public land to honor the Confederacy. An institution created to ensure slavery.

They make no effort to honor the slaves who were held captive in that country

I'm not agreeing that the Republicans are "honoring" the Confederacy as much as preserving Civil War history and historic art.
Whiny little bitch democrats just can't handle historic statues.

 

[Synthaholic]

I dont blame Lincoln for the Civil War

Southern hotheads did that

But the southern states had a right to secede from the Union

Where is that right spelled out?

 

[kyzr]

Apologies to kaz. You're the one who couldn't answer it.
All you wingnut dopes sound alike to me.

You Low-IQ morons all sound alike to me too.

 

[BackAgain]

Except in idaho.

View attachment 874034

 

[rightwinger]

It was an existing right. It was at that time just one of the rights. But they left for their own peace of mind. To not have laws changed that they could not tolerate.

Ft. Sumter had been a Fort erected by the North. But when sovereign states declare they are not part of the USA, trust me, they did not expect to have Ft. Sumter firing on them. Why don't you speak of the many forts that the South recovered even ahead of Lincoln taking office?

There was nothing at all in the Constitution that made States outlaws for departing. They were at all times the property of each state that was then part of the union. Sumter by virtue of location was no longer in the Government of Abe Lincoln and rather in the Government of South Carolina, no longer a state of Abes union.

Lincoln at the time he tried to fool people into thinking it freed the slaves, (a very illegal act at the time) it could change to now a war over slavery. But the beginning of his war he said very loudly, he is not fighting his war over slaves. Slaves to him should be deported.

Should all of Abes statues be removed because he wanted to deport the slaves?

Actually, hotheads in the south overreacted to the election of Lincoln. Nobody was threatening to end slavery. What was being threatened was expansion of slavery to newly formed states

The South electing to take up arms against the United States resulted in ending slavery within four years. Otherwise, it would have lasted decades

 

[Robert W]

I thought those Democrats formed the Confederacy?
Why do TODAYS Republicans defend that Confederacy?

They did.

We do not argue with Democrats over slavery other than they were the slavers.
Abe lived in an era where slavery was very legal. And then if a state decided not to have legal slavery, they could of course say this in their laws. But those changing away from slavery had no right to force other states to abandon what then was perfectly legal.

So all states had sovereign rights. I wish I did not have to say this to adults but our children are being taught lie upon lie and no doubt by teachers now who still teach outright lies to the children.
We defend very much the rights of all states to live up to the claims that Government is by the people, for the people and of the people as claimed by Abraham Lincoln.

States for instance still can ban people. For example States do not have to treat as citizens anybody who wants to show up in a state to stay there unless they are citizens.

I want you to consider executing convicts. Not all states execute convicts. Imagine Biden going into combat with states because they do not do as the Feds do, but that they refuse to execute convicts?

This sort of explains this horshit he invaded over slaves who as I say over and over, was a lawful act by the slave owners of that era.

 

[Edgetho]

Just more along the lines of he that controls the present, controls the past and he that controls the past, controls the future, or so they think. But it is really about making sure nobody thinks about it much. Whether it is like communists, it probably is, but I figure this has been done is spates throughout history and in countries long before communism, so the communist thing in this case does not bother me as much as the repeated stupidity.

Some conquerors were very protective of the Art that was present in the areas they had taken over. Alexander the Great comes to mind. As do the Mongols. The Romans didn't routinely destroy the art work of conquered people.

I think the worst were communist and socialist conquerors. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, etc.

I think (just my theory) that it's because they have no art of their own. communists produce -- Nothing. At all. They are like locusts, they feed until there is nothing left, then they go underground. Hitler was a socialist. Despite the attempts by contemporary socialists to disavow him -- He was a socialist. Period.

At least the German socialists, while they had little in the way of actual art, were good Engineers.

Our current occupying socialist conquerors pro tem are completely without imagination or art. They think 'art' is putting a crucifix in a bottle of urine. How divine.

So, being without art or imagination or measurable IQ's, all they can do is destroy the artwork of others.

They make noises like the art is objectionable but that's not the reason they do it. They are devoid of character, curiosity, inventiveness and artistic talent. All they know is destruction of others' property.

Which tells me -- They won't last. Those types of conquering tribes never do. Never have. Never will.

 

[Mac-7]

Not in the Constitution
Their “justification” was to preserve Slavery

The states freely entered into the Union and nothing in the Constitution says they have to stay

Going back to 1776 the south had as many loyalists as it did rebels

And that did not change in just four score and seven years

 

[Flash]

We can always depend on the Leftest assholes to destroy any history they don't like. Just the kind of turds they are.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not crying about it. I'm used to you assholes supporting it. It's statue... causing you inconsolable grief. Why? Does it butthurt you?

Nah you're just blabbering like a left loon

Progs crying about it are the reason it's being taken down.

 

[Flash]

The states freely entered into the Union and nothing in the Constitution says they have to stay

Going back to 1776 the south had as many loyalists as it did rebels

And that did not change in just

The Union was never meant to be a suicide club.

 

[kyzr]

Nope. I just don't care.
Again, I don't care about what you want to preserve as history or art. Advocate for it to your hearts content. I'm questioning the Bingo argument that knowledge is somehow lost without statues to teach us. It's not a serious argument and I refuse to treat it as such.
Again, who you want to respect is your personal choice. Are you such a Bingo that you don't understand opposing perspectives?
And if a statue is removed then history is destroyed? Explain how that works? Do we all suddenly forget at the same time or does it ripple outward like a wave affecting those closest to the statue first?
More cute arguments rather than real ones. What does this even really mean? You're the one making this about losing history (OMG! ) rather than what it really is which is you just losing a political battle.
I'm glad people can still read about what trash human beings southern Confederate whites were.

1. OK.
2. I'm not making the knowledge argument. I'm making the historic art argument.
3. So if I respect confederate statues, and your psychosis makes you terrified of them, what should happen?
4. I'm fine having statues relocated as opposed to destroyed.
5. This line seems to be getting at the real argument. Is removing statues about losing history or just losing a political battle? see below.
6. History is what it is.

Back to #5.
Removing statues is a political battle?
If a statue is removed I lose and you win? How does that work if the statue is relocated?

 

[bripat9643]

The South seceded over the right to possess other human beings
They foolishly attacked a U.S. base knowingly provoking war.
Lincolns first concern was to preserve the union. When that became impossible, he conducted the war to the maximum extent possible

Ft Sumter was no a US base. It wasn't on US territory, so how could the US have control over it? Where does the Constitution give the president to make war on states if they want to leave? Who gives a fuck what Lincoln wanted. He wasn't supposed to be a dictator.

 

[Robert W]

Republicans insist on using public land to honor the Confederacy. An institution created to ensure slavery.

They make no effort to honor the slaves who were held captive in that country

That was only a portion of them setting themselves apart from the then union and not the only thing essentially forcing them to leave.
The then US Government officially had no objections to slavery. Even had Abe wanted it to be about slavery, he by law could not do that. His emancipation proclamation for a fact was illegal.

Democrats today want it to be about slavery. Actually the old democrats fought to be in a government they wanted. And if the north did not like it, too bad. It was legal for them to form a new government.

Abe did not take them to the Supreme court and that was how he should have handled it. The bloodshed by him and those forced to defend themselves is this nations worst of all wars. And Abe warred on his own kind.

 

[Mac-7]

It means ignorant bigot. I'm proud of my word. Why don't you proudly tell us what those other words mean brave white warrior.

Meaning it is the black equivalent of darkie

Ok darkie, we’ll play by your rules

 

[bripat9643]

The Union was never meant to be a suicide club.

What does that mean, that states aren't allowed to leave?

 

[Mac-7]

Where is that right spelled out?

It does not have to be spelled out

It was the north that needed to be spelled out

 

[Crepitus]

Confederate Memorial at Arlington will be removed despite GOP opposition
Though dozens of congressional Republicans protested the move, the Army says it will begin work in coming days

View attachment 873988


The U.S. Army intends to remove a Confederate memorial from Arlington National Cemetery next week as part of its ongoing work to rid Defense Department property of divisive rebel imagery, defying dozens of congressional Republicans who have vociferously protested the move.





Why would Republicans object to the removal of Confederate monuments if the Confederates were Democrats???

As it should be.

 

[Synthaholic]

Gfy