Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone

[Constructive Anarchy]

I imagine as time passes holding those that fought for right to keep other people as personal property is viewed less and less as an honorable endeavor.

Very much ON TOPIC. Since this to the subject the statues memorialize and is probably the reason many people want it removed..

A very shallow view of history.

 

[Votto]

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 say we make more confederate statues. I'll even put one in my yard just to piss off Dims

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Another superficial dimwit weighs in on history he obviously knows nothing about.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Going by that standard shouldn't every American monument be taken down? The nation was founded on slavery.

 

[Aries]

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.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Soldiers who fought with their comrades should be honored. What next? Desecration of British graves on our soil? Great Britain did not outlaw slavery until 1831.

 

[Bush92]

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.

It was a constitutional crisis.

 

[Aries]

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.

It was a constitutional crisis.

more like a humanitarian crisis..

 

[koshergrl]

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 say we make more confederate statues. I'll even put one in my yard just to piss off Dims

I think that's a great idea!

This one should do it:

Nathan Bedford Forrest | HistoryNet

 

[Bush92]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Going by that standard shouldn't every American monument be taken down? The nation was founded on slavery.

Wrong. The nation was founded on hard work and a pioneer spirit.

 

[Correll]

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.

 

[Aries]

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.

 

[Bush92]

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 say we make more confederate statues. I'll even put one in my yard just to piss off Dims

I think that's a great idea!

This one should do it:

Nathan Bedford Forrest | HistoryNet

Hero at Shiloh.

 

[Bush92]

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.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

 

[koshergrl]

Christ what are they teaching in public schools these days. Obviously nothing like history. What revisionist garbage.

And I say that as a descendent of Revolutionary, Civil War (Union), WWII and Korean War veterans, you piece of shit.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I would have, too.

But my great, great Grandfather, my great, great granduncles on my mom's side were majors in the Union Army.

On my dad's side, they were Confederates.

 

[paperview]

 

[Aries]

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.

I'm sure

 

[Correll]

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.

There was nothing difficult about my question.

YOu made a distinction between the cause of the war, and the reason that Confederate Soldiers fought.


Does it not strike you, that America, by celebrating the soldiers of the Confederacy, is making that distinction TOO?