Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone

[Synthaholic]

Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone


Fuck those traitors.

Another fucking halfwit weighs in .

Every God damn one of them committed treason against The United States Of America.

 

[Synthaholic]

That ain't right. I'm all for tearing them down, though.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

No, slavery was the excuse the feds used to use force against the south. And the south didn't fight because they wanted slaves. They fought because they refused to accept that the feds had the AUTHORITY to force them to do anything. And they were right, the feds DON'T have the authority to exert authority. By claiming it was about SLAVERY they were able to justify it.

If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

Nothing you said here makes any kind of sense. There are no legitimate historians who would support your view.

Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

The expansion of slavery into new western states was the primary specific issue that led to Civil War. The election of Lincoln set off secession because of the perception that he would work to end slavery. Which part of that actual history is difficult for you to understand?

Oh I understand revisionist history. I just don't believe it lol.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, liewinger approves of defacing public property. What else is new?

 

[Pogo]

Maybe little at stake economically but they certainly had a lot at stake. Slavery in the south was not just about working conditions but it affected every aspect of society. I am conflating them because in this instance they were fighting on the same side for the same basic principles. Racism.

The majority of white southerns were subsidence farmers with little concern about slavery or the Cotton Trade.

Yet they supported their leadership in their attempt to break away from the US.


Saying "racism" as a reason is not an answer.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

A bit of perspective on these two points:

Going back to this interesting map posted earlier:

​

--- see that gap in the middle that has no circle graph? That's where I am. This area (western NC/east Tennesee) voted against secession when it was put to a vote, and for the most part stayed loyal to the Union when the War was waged. Not coincidentally the same area did consist of subsistence farmers and little or no slaves, as noted by one poster above.

But that's the case for this area, i.e. Appalachia, not the entire South. In the case of secession and Confederacy this area was literally outvoted by other eastern and western areas of the same states, where there was more sympathy for secession, and more slaves.

Fatter o' mact in the election of 1860 immediately preceding the War, the state of Tennessee voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs that favored holding on to the Union. So did Virginia. Bell IIRC was a slaveholder who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery into new states.

The point being, "the South" is not a monolith. Some of it led the charge for secession and Confederacy, other parts of it were not interested.

How did Missouri, 90% white, vote?

Missouri was the only state that the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas carried. He also got a couple of EVs from New Jersey which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln. But in the field of four, Douglas came in dead last. And once it was over he worked with the President-Elect to try to preseve the Union.

No idea what "90% white" is supposed to mean, since in the rest of the country including Appalachia, the vote was "100% white".

YOur point was the slavery was sooo incredible important and that that drove the secession.

If you were correct, then I would expect that Missouri, with the LEAST number of slaves, percentage wise would have been the LEAST supportive of secession.

Oh fucking horseshit. I made no such point. Do not put words in my mouth.
Missouri didn't secede anyway.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

No, slavery was the excuse the feds used to use force against the south. And the south didn't fight because they wanted slaves. They fought because they refused to accept that the feds had the AUTHORITY to force them to do anything. And they were right, the feds DON'T have the authority to exert authority. By claiming it was about SLAVERY they were able to justify it.

If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

Nothing you said here makes any kind of sense. There are no legitimate historians who would support your view.

Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

The expansion of slavery into new western states was the primary specific issue that led to Civil War. The election of Lincoln set off secession because of the perception that he would work to end slavery. Which part of that actual history is difficult for you to understand?

Oh I understand revisionist history. I just don't believe it lol.

You don't know anything about any kind of history.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone


Fuck those traitors.

Another fucking halfwit weighs in .

Every God damn one of them committed treason against The United States Of America.

And what does that have to do with removing historic monuments? I mean besides making shallow dimwits feel good about themselves. As if they were doing something important.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

That ain't right. I'm all for tearing them down, though.

Much like those ANTIFA morons. Always trying to tell people what to say and what to think. Without ever actually thinking about anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Lately, it has become fashionable in the minds of some, to go about proposing bills to removed statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers. Currently in Florida 2 bills have been introduced to do this. These are Florida SB 1360 and SCR 760.

The high horse proposers of these bills are intending to set new standards for all of us in America, about who we can honor, and who we may not. Looks like they’ve got soldiers of the old Confederacy on the don’t honor list.

This is more than stupid. It is disgraceful to DIShonor these people who wore their military uniforms, and put their lives on the line, to follow the orders they were given.

As far as what cause the Confederate soldiers fought for, I’d say that since their homelands were being attacked by outside forces (buildings burned, bridges blown up, etc.), they fought primarily a defensive war. This is more just and legitimate than the Vietnam War, in which US soil and people were not being attacked by any Vietnamese people. And do we ask for Vietnam veterans’ statues or monuments to be removed ? Last time I looked, there were more of them being installed.

I don’t think ANY veterans of any state of the current USA (including Florida), should have their statues or monuments removed. This is a disgrace, and it disgraces those who propose and support such stupid laws.

I was born in Florida and moved out to Ohio State, and have been around the world since. Today, I agree that these Confederate Soldiers who fought to keep slavery alive in America, should be taken down from a place of honor and put in a museum telling about their TRUE history. Just like we don't want Germany going around and having statues of Hitler all over the place, when the bad guys lose(and the confederates were bad) they shouldn't be put in an honorable place.

Westward Expansion and the American Civil War - US History Scene

Politicians were forced to deal with the issue of slavery and its westward expansion as early as the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The States had previously maintained a shaky balance in the Senate with an equal number of representatives from both Slave and Free States. As Missouri prepared to enter the Union as a Slave State, this tentative balance threatened to come undone. Henry Clay of Kentucky temporarily solved the issue by crafting the Missouri Compromise, bringing Missouri into the Union as a Slave State and, as a balance, Maine entered as a Free State.

They don't teach this is public education anymore because for the Southern White Democrats(and Northern Democrats) they hated blacks and saw them as beneath them, even when they reached the office of Congress and they were Republicans.

So you agree that the statues should come down of those 'Democrats' - the Confederate soldiers?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I think I'm about done with this forum. I can get better, more substantive debates in the comments section of a Youtube video any time.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I was born in Florida and moved out to Ohio State, and have been around the world since. Today, I agree that these Confederate Soldiers who fought to keep slavery alive in America, should be taken down from a place of honor and put in a museum telling about their TRUE history. Just like we don't want Germany going around and having statues of Hitler all over the place, when the bad guys lose(and the confederates were bad) they shouldn't be put in an honorable place.

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

I would have fought for the South.

Is that because you have an angst against people of color? I was born in the south, moved to the north, didn't understand why people didn't like blacks, but when I read the book Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White: David Barton: 9781932225273: Amazon.com: Books it set me on the enlightened path on why the Southern White Democrats of old have turned into the Left Wing Liberal Zelot Party of the Communist US of A.

All Socialism Involves Slavery

To be more than nominal, however, the ownership must be shown by control of the slave’s actions—a control which is habitually for the benefit of the controller.

 

[pwjohn]

Lately, it has become fashionable in the minds of some, to go about proposing bills to removed statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers. Currently in Florida 2 bills have been introduced to do this. These are Florida SB 1360 and SCR 760.

The high horse proposers of these bills are intending to set new standards for all of us in America, about who we can honor, and who we may not. Looks like they’ve got soldiers of the old Confederacy on the don’t honor list.

This is more than stupid. It is disgraceful to DIShonor these people who wore their military uniforms, and put their lives on the line, to follow the orders they were given.

As far as what cause the Confederate soldiers fought for, I’d say that since their homelands were being attacked by outside forces (buildings burned, bridges blown up, etc.), they fought primarily a defensive war. This is more just and legitimate than the Vietnam War, in which US soil and people were not being attacked by any Vietnamese people. And do we ask for Vietnam veterans’ statues or monuments to be removed ? Last time I looked, there were more of them being installed.

I don’t think ANY veterans of any state of the current USA (including Florida), should have their statues or monuments removed. This is a disgrace, and it disgraces those who propose and support such stupid laws.

Johnny Rebs allegiance to a flag other than the American flag makes him a traitor and is reason enough to demolish every monument to his memory.

 

[pwjohn]

You cannot hide history. Consider Germany. They banned by law all things Nazi, yet it is on the rise again.

All you can do is educate, which we are not doing.

That's no reason to leave the monuments to those traitors ( Johnny reb ) in place.

 

[Ima Cat]

One wonders about the brains of those who fret about statutes as the world descends to turmoil .

 

[pwjohn]

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

No, slavery was the excuse the feds used to use force against the south. And the south didn't fight because they wanted slaves. They fought because they refused to accept that the feds had the AUTHORITY to force them to do anything. And they were right, the feds DON'T have the authority to exert authority. By claiming it was about SLAVERY they were able to justify it.

If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

Nothing you said here makes any kind of sense. There are no legitimate historians who would support your view.

Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

The expansion of slavery into new western states was the primary specific issue that led to Civil War. The election of Lincoln set off secession because of the perception that he would work to end slavery. Which part of that actual history is difficult for you to understand?

Oh I understand revisionist history. I just don't believe it lol.

Some guy holding a trash can lid while taking it in the ass by a Viking! Is there some significance to that?

 

[pwjohn]

One wonders about the brains of those who fret about statutes as the world descends to turmoil .

America is all about freedom silly boy! Johnny reb not so much.

 

[Correll]

Lately, it has become fashionable in the minds of some, to go about proposing bills to removed statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers. Currently in Florida 2 bills have been introduced to do this. These are Florida SB 1360 and SCR 760.

The high horse proposers of these bills are intending to set new standards for all of us in America, about who we can honor, and who we may not. Looks like they’ve got soldiers of the old Confederacy on the don’t honor list.

This is more than stupid. It is disgraceful to DIShonor these people who wore their military uniforms, and put their lives on the line, to follow the orders they were given.

As far as what cause the Confederate soldiers fought for, I’d say that since their homelands were being attacked by outside forces (buildings burned, bridges blown up, etc.), they fought primarily a defensive war. This is more just and legitimate than the Vietnam War, in which US soil and people were not being attacked by any Vietnamese people. And do we ask for Vietnam veterans’ statues or monuments to be removed ? Last time I looked, there were more of them being installed.

I don’t think ANY veterans of any state of the current USA (including Florida), should have their statues or monuments removed. This is a disgrace, and it disgraces those who propose and support such stupid laws.

Johnny Rebs allegiance to a flag other than the American flag makes him a traitor and is reason enough to demolish every monument to his memory.

The Union vets disagreed.

 

[Correll]

You cannot hide history. Consider Germany. They banned by law all things Nazi, yet it is on the rise again.

All you can do is educate, which we are not doing.

That's no reason to leave the monuments to those traitors ( Johnny reb ) in place.

You are so brave, when faced with an enemy a hundred years dead.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[rightwinger]

Ah, liewinger approves of defacing public property. What else is new?

Not nearly as bad as the "defacing" that was done to maintain slavery