Confederate Statue Removers Are Soldier Haters

[protectionist]

>> The 1890s, when the UDC was founded and monument building began in earnest, was a decade of virulent racism across the South. Not content to disenfranchise black men, Southern whites went on a lynching spree. Ida B. Wells, the African American journalist and anti-lynching crusader, documented 186 lynchings of black people in 1893 alone — mostly men but women and children, too. As she wrote in her account “The Red Record,” these “scenes of unusual brutality failed to have any visible effect upon the humane sentiments of the people of our land.” *

Violence against blacks only increased in the early decades of the 20th century. In addition to continued lynching across the South, the Atlanta race riot of 1906 demonstrated how seriously white men took their supremacy over African Americans: An estimated 10,000 white men and boys in the city went after black men, beating dozens to death and injuring hundreds more.

Amid that brutality, the pace of Confederate monument construction quickened. The UDC and other like-minded heritage organizations were intent on honoring the Confederate generation and establishing a revisionist history of what they called the War Between the States. According to this Lost Cause mythology, the South went to war to defend states’ rights, slavery was essentially a benevolent institution that imparted Christianity to African “savages,” and, while the Confederates were defeated, theirs was a just cause and those who fought were heroes. The Daughters regarded the Ku Klux Klan, which had been founded to resist Reconstruction, as a heroic organization, necessary to return order to the South. Order, of course, meant the use of violence to subdue newly freed blacks.

During the era of Jim Crow, Confederate monuments could be placed most anywhere. Some were in cemeteries or parks, but far more were erected on the grounds of local and state courthouses. These monuments, then, not only represented reverence for soldiers who fought in a war to defend slavery, they also made a very pointed statement about the rule of white supremacy: All who enter the courthouse are subject to the laws of white men. << -- Karen Cox, Professor of History, UNC Charlotte, author of “Goat Castle: A True Story of Murder, Race, and the Gothic South”
​

* - see the aforementioned thread "Lynching in America"

 

[bodecea]

Has anyone asked the question why the Civil War monuments were not a problem during Obama’s 8 years as President?

One final thought, George Soros was Jew who betrayed his own people and collaborated with Nazis.



The Nazification of the United States

Soros! Soros! Soros! The cry of the Alt-Right, NAZIS and their fellow travelers.

 

[bodecea]

>> The 1890s, when the UDC was founded and monument building began in earnest, was a decade of virulent racism across the South. Not content to disenfranchise black men, Southern whites went on a lynching spree. Ida B. Wells, the African American journalist and anti-lynching crusader, documented 186 lynchings of black people in 1893 alone — mostly men but women and children, too. As she wrote in her account “The Red Record,” these “scenes of unusual brutality failed to have any visible effect upon the humane sentiments of the people of our land.” *

Violence against blacks only increased in the early decades of the 20th century. In addition to continued lynching across the South, the Atlanta race riot of 1906 demonstrated how seriously white men took their supremacy over African Americans: An estimated 10,000 white men and boys in the city went after black men, beating dozens to death and injuring hundreds more.

Amid that brutality, the pace of Confederate monument construction quickened. The UDC and other like-minded heritage organizations were intent on honoring the Confederate generation and establishing a revisionist history of what they called the War Between the States. According to this Lost Cause mythology, the South went to war to defend states’ rights, slavery was essentially a benevolent institution that imparted Christianity to African “savages,” and, while the Confederates were defeated, theirs was a just cause and those who fought were heroes. The Daughters regarded the Ku Klux Klan, which had been founded to resist Reconstruction, as a heroic organization, necessary to return order to the South. Order, of course, meant the use of violence to subdue newly freed blacks.

During the era of Jim Crow, Confederate monuments could be placed most anywhere. Some were in cemeteries or parks, but far more were erected on the grounds of local and state courthouses. These monuments, then, not only represented reverence for soldiers who fought in a war to defend slavery, they also made a very pointed statement about the rule of white supremacy: All who enter the courthouse are subject to the laws of white men. << -- Karen Cox, Professor of History, UNC Charlotte, author of “Goat Castle: A True Story of Murder, Race, and the Gothic South”
​

* - see the aforementioned thread "Lynching in America"

View attachment 144713

It's very much on topic....you just don't want to deal with the truth of what those statues were really all about.

 

[protectionist]

And one more thing -- about these monuments and "soldiers"...............

​

A larger image would be nice if available, but if it's hard to read it says:

"Accepting the arbitrament of war, they preserved the Anglo-Saxon civilization of the South and became master builders in a re-united country"​

Maybe not so re-united huh. Can't imagine why.
Ironically at the bottom it says "Veritas Vincit" ("truth prevails"). Again, maybe not.

That's in Charlotte. Doesn't get much more right to the point I just made about historical context than that. Same time period.

Nobody ever said EVERY monument was acceptable. It is the ones that simply are statues of SOLDIERS, that this thread is about. SOLDIERS, not policies. If you can't stay on topic, Mr Straw Man, I'm going to have to report it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Every soldier and veteran in America should be up in arms over these disgraceful dishonorings - and they probably are, but the MSM won't cover that.

I'm a retired veteran, served over 20 years in the Navy, and was in 4 war zones. I have no problem with these statues being removed. They represent the side that lost the war, and according to the president, this country should not celebrate losers.

Okay so if all the Never Trump, antipolice and Antifa were losers in the election, why are we listening and giving in to their terrorist threats to destroy our own national history and unity? ABikerSailor

 

[protectionist]

It's very much on topic....you just don't want to deal with the truth of what those statues were really all about.

That's what YOU don't want to deal with - the honor of the SOLDIERS.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

More likely they're haters of racism and bigotry, which is the environment whence all these statues and monuments came.

They don't date from the Civil War or just-after. They date from the turn of the century, the period of this country's worst nadir of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the resurrection of the Klan, "Birth of a Nation", race rioting and rampant discrimination. All branches of the same tree, all there to serve the cause of White Supremacy. In fact the Klan itself set some of them up.

So it would seem they're haters of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the Klan, "whites only", the "gentleman's agreement" that kept blacks out of baseball for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson, the Klan, and everything that feeds that sewer.

"Soldiers" doesn't even enter into it. That's just a shield the bigots hide behind.

Shall we now "defend" the other expressions of the time and bring back the Klan? "Colored" public water fountains? Ban blacks from baseball?

Context, m'boy, context. You're standing in a forest. Quit gazing at a single tree.

Hate and bigotry doesn't even enter into it. The statues are of SOLDIERS - who had nothjing to do with the any hateful policies. You want to bitch about policies go after politicians.

The soldiers didn't put those statues up. The statues didn't put themselves up. You go look up who did put them up, and why.

By the way, know who was president of a college just after the Civil War that had its own Klan chapter that would abduct and rape nearby black schoolgirls?

Robert E. Lee.

That's a good story you should right for Rolling Stone.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Hate and bigotry doesn't even enter into it. The statues are of SOLDIERS - who had nothjing to do with the any hateful policies. You want to bitch about policies go after politicians.

The statues are of traitors who took up arms against their country. fail.

They were conscripted Americans the memorial is for Americans who died in battle.

 

[JQPublic1]

There was another Choice. Since most of them did not own slaves they could have refused to leave the union. They could have rebelled against the rich slave holders and said no. But instead they drank the kool- aid and went off to fight and die for the fiends who brought slaves in to take their jobs. If the masses of average southerners had stayed loyal to the union the Civil War would never have happened...they would nevet have had to worry about having their homes razed or any of the other consequences of losing a war.

I'm catching up on dozens of old posts right now. No time for new conversations now.. See you LATER

Yeh...you'd best cut and run...traitor lover.

 

[protectionist]

There was another Choice. Since most of them did not own slaves they could have refused to leave the union. They could have rebelled against the rich slave holders and said no. But instead they drank the kool- aid and went off to fight and die for the fiends who brought slaves in to take their jobs. If the masses of average southerners had stayed loyal to the union the Civil War would never have happened...they would nevet have had to worry about having their homes razed or any of the other consequences of losing a war.

You are so drenched in your leftist loon propaganda that you don't even know how far detatched you are in this thread. This is evident by how you keep talking about slaves.

EARTH TO JQP: Many, if not most, southern fighters, military or civilian, never even heard of slavery. They knew nothing of it. In mountain areas of the south (where plantations and slavery was non existent) hillbilly people often lived their entire lives never venturing more than 100 miles of their home. They had no TV, no radio, no computers, and if there were newspapers, they probably couldn't read them. There were no airplanes either. Most did not have trains nearby. People simply tended to their farms cops and animals. Most probably didn't even know there was a black race in existence.

All they knew was a large bunch of guys were shooting at them, blasting their bridges and buildings with cannon fire, and burning down their churches. So they defended themselves and fought back. YOU would have done the same.

 

[emilynghiem]

More likely they're haters of racism and bigotry, which is the environment whence all these statues and monuments came.

They don't date from the Civil War or just-after. They date from the turn of the century, the period of this country's worst nadir of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the resurrection of the Klan, "Birth of a Nation", race rioting and rampant discrimination. All branches of the same tree, all there to serve the cause of White Supremacy. In fact the Klan itself set some of them up.

So it would seem they're haters of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the Klan, "whites only", the "gentleman's agreement" that kept blacks out of baseball for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson, the Klan, and everything that feeds that sewer.

"Soldiers" doesn't even enter into it. That's just a shield the bigots hide behind.

Shall we now "defend" the other expressions of the time and bring back the Klan? "Colored" public water fountains? Ban blacks from baseball?

Context, m'boy, context. You're standing in a forest. Quit gazing at a single tree.

Hate and bigotry doesn't even enter into it. The statues are of SOLDIERS - who had nothjing to do with the any hateful policies. You want to bitch about policies go after politicians.

The soldiers didn't put those statues up. The statues didn't put themselves up. You go look up who did put them up, and why.

By the way, know who was president of a college just after the Civil War that had its own Klan chapter that would abduct and rape nearby black schoolgirls?

Robert E. Lee.

That's a good story you should right for Rolling Stone.

Dear Pogo cc Call Sign Chaos
If you keep going down this road, of only focusing on one side of historic interpretation and one-sided narrative while voiding and wiping out the other, Pogo you risk going back to the days of banishing ppl for being gay because of ONE SIDE that sees it as a sickness or destroying religious statues because of wars fought over those idols.

Pogo do you want to tear down all mosques or burn all Qurans because the worshipped leader led armies to kill off religious infidels.

What happens the day science shows SOME ppl not all have been healed of abuse that caused gay or transgender orientation. Are we going to see an uprising banning all leaders who censored therapy and exgays to oppress their side of the truth. Are we going to embrace diversity from all sides or take one side's side and smash the others into extinction. WTF Pogo what happened to cultural inclusion and forgiving the imperfect past of every person and culture that has contributed to the GROWTH of this nation. It's not about repeating the past, it's about not repeating the same fascist patterns that caused war in the first place.

 

[protectionist]

Has anyone asked the question why the Civil War monuments were not a problem during Obama’s 8 years as President?

Interesting question. Well, monument removers ? Care to answer ?

 

[protectionist]

It's not self-defense when you START the war.

As for the 13 colonies....it was considered treason by England and guess what would have happened to the leaders if England had prevailed.

It is self-defense when 99% of the war is the other guy traveling long distances & attacking you, on your turf.

As for my question, I didn't ask what England considered it to be, I asked what YOU consider it.

 

[protectionist]

It's very much on topic....you just don't want to deal with the truth of what those statues were really all about.

It's very much OFF topic....you just don't want to deal with the truth of what those statues ARE really all about.

 

[Pogo]

It's not self-defense when you START the war.

As for the 13 colonies....it was considered treason by England and guess what would have happened to the leaders if England had prevailed.

It is self-defense when 99% of the war is the other guy traveling long distances & attacking you, on your turf.

--- which describes what James Fields did, driving across Ohio and West Virginia to get there.

 

[protectionist]

Yeh...you'd best cut and run...traitor lover.

I'm right here, Mr Deflection//////SOLDIER HATER

 

[Pogo]

Has anyone asked the question why the Civil War monuments were not a problem during Obama’s 8 years as President?

Interesting question. Well, monument removers ? Care to answer ?

I'm not a "monument remover" but this has been going on for decades, and escalated right after Dylann Roof did his thing. Immediately after that Nikky Haley and the SC state leg took down the Confederate flag. That was 2015, when O'bama still had a year and a half left. It was also right after that that this state (the other Carolina) passed a law prohibiting local municipalities from deciding the fate of the monuments on their turf. Like Charlottesville did, like New Orleans did.

That's where this contemporary push starts --- Charleston South Carolina, June 2015. Interestingly, the same site where the first Civil War shots were fired, the same state that was the first to secede in 1860, and the same state that threatened to secede as far back as 1828.

SC is a happenin' place.

 

[protectionist]

--- which describes what James Fields did, driving across Ohio and West Virginia to get there.

What does that have to do with 99% of the war being fought in South against outside invaders ? Are you relling me about the other 1%. If so, why ?

 

[Pogo]

More likely they're haters of racism and bigotry, which is the environment whence all these statues and monuments came.

They don't date from the Civil War or just-after. They date from the turn of the century, the period of this country's worst nadir of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the resurrection of the Klan, "Birth of a Nation", race rioting and rampant discrimination. All branches of the same tree, all there to serve the cause of White Supremacy. In fact the Klan itself set some of them up.

So it would seem they're haters of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the Klan, "whites only", the "gentleman's agreement" that kept blacks out of baseball for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson, the Klan, and everything that feeds that sewer.

"Soldiers" doesn't even enter into it. That's just a shield the bigots hide behind.

Shall we now "defend" the other expressions of the time and bring back the Klan? "Colored" public water fountains? Ban blacks from baseball?

Context, m'boy, context. You're standing in a forest. Quit gazing at a single tree.

Hate and bigotry doesn't even enter into it. The statues are of SOLDIERS - who had nothjing to do with the any hateful policies. You want to bitch about policies go after politicians.

The soldiers didn't put those statues up. The statues didn't put themselves up. You go look up who did put them up, and why.

By the way, know who was president of a college just after the Civil War that had its own Klan chapter that would abduct and rape nearby black schoolgirls?

Robert E. Lee.

That's a good story you should right for Rolling Stone.

Dear Pogo cc Call Sign Chaos
If you keep going down this road, of only focusing on one side of historic interpretation and one-sided narrative while voiding and wiping out the other, Pogo you risk going back to the days of banishing ppl for being gay because of ONE SIDE that sees it as a sickness or destroying religious statues because of wars fought over those idols.

Pogo do you want to tear down all mosques or burn all Qurans because the worshipped leader led armies to kill off religious infidels.

What happens the day science shows SOME ppl not all have been healed of abuse that caused gay or transgender orientation. Are we going to see an uprising banning all leaders who censored therapy and exgays to oppress their side of the truth. Are we going to embrace diversity from all sides or take one side's side and smash the others into extinction. WTF Pogo what happened to cultural inclusion and forgiving the imperfect past of every person and culture that has contributed to the GROWTH of this nation. It's not about repeating the past, it's about not repeating the same fascist patterns that caused war in the first place.

Once AGIAN Emily ----- nothing I've posted advocates "banning" or "tearing down" anything. You're still not reading.

DO NOT put words in my mouth.

 

[protectionist]

I'm not a "monument remover" but this has been going on for decades, and escalated right after Dylann Roof did his thing. Immediately after that Nikky Haley and the SC state leg took down the Confederate flag. That was 2015, when O'bama still had a year and a half left. It was also right after that that this state (the other Carolina) passed a law prohibiting local municipalities from deciding the fate of the monuments on their turf. Like Charlottesville did, like New Orleans did.
.

If Charlottesville has a law "prohibiting local municipalities from deciding the fate of the monuments on their turf", then why are they talking about doing just that ?