For Every Confederate Soldier Statue They Remove, Put Up 10

[DigitalDrifter]

Thank you, but I don't need a cut and paste from Wiki. I'm aware of the history of the fort.

Again, you're missing the point that the South had declared their independence and due to the proximity of the fort, they viewed the occupying army as a foreign entity. They were consistent with their demands of a withdraw.

South Carolina had an option of doing nothing
The US was not using the fort to block shipping. It was just there
They could have waited until the fort was impeding commerce in the Charleston port. Then they would have been justified

As it was, they attacked sovereign territory and gave the north a justification to retaliate

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

'

Don't understand the difference with England and self rule versus SLAVERY huh cupcake?

So the CONservative cupcakes just chose to use violence to implement what they wanted huh?

How'd that "physically removing" thing work out

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

 

[Old Rocks]

They committed Treason to the United States of America. Something our present admin knows all too well.

And I think that every black in the South should have a statue of a Federal black soldier that fought for the Union on their property.

 

[JonKoch]

Listen you right wing cupcake, the 3/5th thing was BECAUSE the CONservative Southern States of AmeriKKKa wanted to count slaves as "people" for representation in Congress/taxes but NOT ANYTHING else. The North wanted SLAVES not to be counted at ALL, but ACCEPTED the 3/5th compromise of SLAVES, NOT BLACKS!!!



" Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state."


To simplify, free blacks were counted just as the whites were counted, but a slave did represent 3/5 of a person.



WEDGE ISSUE? YOU POOR CUPCAKE


"IF you were to bother to read, you would notice that the Articles of Secession for EVERY ONE of the treasonous states that formed the Con-federacy stated slavery and the preservation of slavery as a prime reason for secession. You gonna deny that too?"
bodecea

That was the US constitution you cited. Good for you. How about those segregated ghettos of the north?

Did the Northerners call them property cupcake?

Your ignoring the 3/5th comment noted

I already pointed out your reference to the constitutional 3/5 ruling.
So you think racism and racial opression are OK as long as they're not slavery?
More left wing selective-context fascism.

Sorry cupcake YOU said "federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human."


BZZ you were proven wrong about that, are going to admit it cupcake? Or run away to you safe space?



Yes, it's been the "liberals" of the left with the racist past and current? LMAOROG

You're a Nazi book-burner who selectively applies context in order to force an agenda. And you're so brainwashed you can't even get your brain around that.

Your inability to admit you were wrong on ""federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human." noted cupcake, everything else:

 

[JonKoch]

South Carolina had an option of doing nothing
The US was not using the fort to block shipping. It was just there
They could have waited until the fort was impeding commerce in the Charleston port. Then they would have been justified

As it was, they attacked sovereign territory and gave the north a justification to retaliate

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

'

Don't understand the difference with England and self rule versus SLAVERY huh cupcake?

So the CONservative cupcakes just chose to use violence to implement what they wanted huh?

How'd that "physically removing" thing work out

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

 

[Synthaholic]

This is a representation of the time that the Jolly Green Giant got trapped in quicksand.

 

[JQPublic1]

LMAOROG, Oh cupcake



Named after General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero, Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.



In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because" I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[[12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia


YOU CONservative bastards STILL are as traitorous as the scum who fired on FEDERAL PROPERTY!

Thank you, but I don't need a cut and paste from Wiki. I'm aware of the history of the fort.

Again, you're missing the point that the South had declared their independence and due to the proximity of the fort, they viewed the occupying army as a foreign entity. They were consistent with their demands of a withdraw.

South Carolina had an option of doing nothing
The US was not using the fort to block shipping. It was just there
They could have waited until the fort was impeding commerce in the Charleston port. Then they would have been justified

As it was, they attacked sovereign territory and gave the north a justification to retaliate

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

You are referring to the Crittenden Compromise. Crittenden, a Whig senator from Kentucky, introdued a six point strategy
to avert the Civil War. Most of the proposal
was, as expected, favorable to the slave holding south. But he added a provision that doomed it without further consideration.
Somehow he thought lincoln and the Union
would accept a deal stipulating that the concessions in his compromise granted to slaveholders could never be changed.

 

[JQPublic1]

LMAOROG, Oh cupcake



Named after General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero, Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.



In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because" I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[[12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia


YOU CONservative bastards STILL are as traitorous as the scum who fired on FEDERAL PROPERTY!

Thank you, but I don't need a cut and paste from Wiki. I'm aware of the history of the fort.

Again, you're missing the point that the South had declared their independence and due to the proximity of the fort, they viewed the occupying army as a foreign entity. They were consistent with their demands of a withdraw.

South Carolina had an option of doing nothing
The US was not using the fort to block shipping. It was just there
They could have waited until the fort was impeding commerce in the Charleston port. Then they would have been justified

As it was, they attacked sovereign territory and gave the north a justification to retaliate

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

You're brainwashed. The Fed stole state property.

Who owned the deed? The name of the owner was stamped on the cannons and probably the cannon balls. Just think of all the things a fort would have bearing the U.S. Army logo...including the nameplate over the main gate.

 

[rightwinger]

Thank you, but I don't need a cut and paste from Wiki. I'm aware of the history of the fort.

Again, you're missing the point that the South had declared their independence and due to the proximity of the fort, they viewed the occupying army as a foreign entity. They were consistent with their demands of a withdraw.

South Carolina had an option of doing nothing
The US was not using the fort to block shipping. It was just there
They could have waited until the fort was impeding commerce in the Charleston port. Then they would have been justified

As it was, they attacked sovereign territory and gave the north a justification to retaliate

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

You're brainwashed. The Fed stole state property.

Who owned the deed? The name of the owner was stamped on the cannons and probably the cannon balls. Just think of all the things a fort would have bearing the U.S. Army logo...including the nameplate over the main gate.

That is part of the reason secession was illegal

We are seceding and taking all Federal Property without offering compensation is blatantly illegal. The nation as a whole had invested in that property and received nothing

 

[DigitalDrifter]

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

'

Don't understand the difference with England and self rule versus SLAVERY huh cupcake?

So the CONservative cupcakes just chose to use violence to implement what they wanted huh?

How'd that "physically removing" thing work out

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

Look, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with militias, slavery, etc.
I simply look at it as whether or not states could vote to declare their independence and leave the Union.

We all know why the South wanted to secede, it was the only way they were going to be able to continue their horrific practice of enslaving other human beings.
However, that is absolutely not the reason the Union forcibly kept them from becoming their own country.
There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that made it clear that terrotories could vote to join the Union, but not be able to vote to leave.

IMO it was morally wrong to kill others in order to force them to remain in the Union.

 

[Dragonlady]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

The Democrats are trying to rewrite their own history. They'd like to get as far away from slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other products and vestiges that continue to sully their well-known history and current totalitarian objectives, and their renewed support for the slavery of all to The State.

Democrats trying to rewrite history?

The KKK was started by soldiers returning from the Civil War to fight the Carpetbaggers who were looting the South. Today's Republicans are trying to say it was started by the Democrats. THIS is rewriting history.

Southerners of both parties fought for segregation. But when push came to shove, every single Southern Republican voted against the Civil Right Act in the 1960's while a handful of Southern Democrats voted in favour. Northern politicians from both parties supported the Bill.

I'm sure it makes you feel better about the Republicans racism today, but it's a false history.

 

[protectionist]

I'm sure it makes you feel better about the Republicans racism today, but it's a false history.

And the Democrats' racism ? Affirmative Action. How do you feel about THAT ?

 

[protectionist]

This is one of the monuments that was removed. Our resident klansmen here are defending monuments that literally have words carved in stone praising white supremacy.

Dear MR STRAW MAN: The OP and the thread refers to SOLDIERS' statues. To their bravery and sacrifice, not white supremacy.

Many, if not most, southerners (soldiers or civilian) did not fight for "white supremacy". In the 1860s, many southerners (especially in the mountain areas of the south) knew nothing of slavery or the Confederacy. They never laid eyes on a black person. They had no TV, no radio, no computers, and most were illiterate, and if had access to a newspaper, they couldn't read it anyway.

Many of these people never ventured more than 100 miles from their homes (often farms), in their whole lives. They were poor, had little transportation, and picked up arms to fight only because the North soldiers were shooting at them, blowing up their buildings, and burning down their churches and bridges.

In their shoes, what would you do ? Nothing ?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

The Democrats are trying to rewrite their own history. They'd like to get as far away from slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other products and vestiges that continue to sully their well-known history and current totalitarian objectives, and their renewed support for the slavery of all to The State.

Democrats trying to rewrite history?

The KKK was started by soldiers returning from the Civil War to fight the Carpetbaggers who were looting the South.

Yup, soldiers of the Confederacy, which was Democrat in origin.

Today's Republicans are trying to say it was started by the Democrats. THIS is rewriting history.

Nope. Your attempt to rewrite history is an attempted rewrite of history.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Southerners of both parties fought for segregation. But when push came to shove, every single Southern Republican voted against the Civil Right Act in the 1960's while a handful of Southern Democrats voted in favour.

Shrug. Democrat is Democrat. Democrats attempted to filibuster the thing to death. Everett Dirksen, Republican, built a coalition of Republicans in favor of the bill without whom the bill would have failed.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

"Favour"? Are you Canadian? Brit? ESL?

What you might not know about the 1964 Civil Rights Act - CNNPolitics.com

I'm sure it makes you feel better about the Republicans racism today, but it's a false history.

Democrats are as racist today as they have ever been. The difference today is they are more equal opportunity in their hate, as they hate whites as much or more as they hate all others.

They are collectively insane.

 

[JQPublic1]

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

'

Don't understand the difference with England and self rule versus SLAVERY huh cupcake?

So the CONservative cupcakes just chose to use violence to implement what they wanted huh?

How'd that "physically removing" thing work out

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

Look, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with militias, slavery, etc.
I simply look at it as whether or not states could vote to declare their independence and leave the Union.

We all know why the South wanted to secede, it was the only way they were going to be able to continue their horrific practice of enslaving other human beings.
However, that is absolutely not the reason the Union forcibly kept them from becoming their own country.
There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that made it clear that terrotories could vote to join the Union, but not be able to vote to leave.

IMO it was morally wrong to kill others in order to force them to remain in the Union.

The"others" were trying to steal U.S. property worth millions at the time.. If the rebs wanted to leave the Union they were welcome to move south of the border.

 

[JQPublic1]

This is one of the monuments that was removed. Our resident klansmen here are defending monuments that literally have words carved in stone praising white supremacy.

Dear MR STRAW MAN: The OP and the thread refers to SOLDIERS' statues. To their bravery and sacrifice, not white supremacy.

Many, if not most, southerners (soldiers or civilian) did not fight for "white supremacy". In the 1860s, many southerners (especially in the mountain areas of the south) knew nothing of slavery or the Confederacy. They never laid eyes on a black person. They had no TV, no radio, no computers, and most were illiterate, and if had access to a newspaper, they couldn't read it anyway.

Many of these people never ventured more than 100 miles from their homes (often farms), in their whole lives. They were poor, had little transportation, and picked up arms to fight only because the North soldiers were shooting at them, blowing up their buildings, and burning down their churches and bridges.

In their shoes, what would you do ? Nothing ?

I wouldn't build monuments to the scoundrels who brought northern wrath upon them. The poor White southerners should have been the first to call for removing those dreadful icons off public lands.

 

[mamooth]

Dear MR STRAW MAN: The OP and the thread refers to SOLDIERS' statues.

Yes, because Gen. Lee and Gen. Beauregard were soldiers. That's what it was referring to. There were no "monuments to the generic southern soldier who had never met a black person" being taken down. Such monuments tend to called "cemeteries".

Many, if not most, southerners (soldiers or civilian) did not fight for "white supremacy".

Gen. Lee and Gen. Beauregard were well aware they were fighting for slavery.

 

[protectionist]

I wouldn't build monuments to the scoundrels who brought northern wrath upon them. The poor White southerners should have been the first to call for removing those dreadful icons off public lands.

A SOLDIER who fought against the Northern army invasion, was not a "scoundrel". He was merely fight to defend his home, property, family.

 

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't build monuments to the scoundrels who brought northern wrath upon them. The poor White southerners should have been the first to call for removing those dreadful icons off public lands.

A SOLDIER who fought against the Northern army invasion, was not a "scoundrel". He was merely fight to defend his home, property, family.

Those fighting for the Confederacy were fighting to preserve slavery
There was no other purpose of the Confederacy

 

[MindWars]

Yes, remind people that you support treason. Put up a Trump sign, too, and there will be no doubt.

You libtards don't even know what treason means, let alone who it applies too, best look at Obama that is the bastard who committed treason like it or not.

 

[protectionist]

Gen. Lee and Gen. Beauregard were well aware they were fighting for slavery.

1. Many statues of common Southern soldiers are being removed.

2. Generals, Captains, Privates, Sergeants. all soldiers of any rank, simply follow orders. It is politiicans who decide what they're fighting for.

3. The Confederate soldier, his territory being attacked by troops from hundreds of miles away, had a more (self-defense) valid purpose to fight, than US soldiers did in Vietnam, where soldiers traveled thousands of miles to attack people who never attacked us. Would you remove the statues of Vietnam soldiers ? (of any rank)