Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFTER the war -- and emancipation, race relations BECAME a national issue as Blacks migrated to the North. And YOUR COUNTRY and its Federal Govt did some VERY UGLY THINGS for ANOTHER 100 FUCKING YEARS to Black Americans. THAT 100 years of oppression, segregation, and DESIGN of racial divides is equally on North and South. NO ONE's hands are clean from that period.
The country (read: government) as well as the country (read: culture). Lynchings for instance were going on in the South but were also going on in Illinois and Nebraska and even, famously Duluth Minnesota, about as far away from the South as you can get and still be in the United States. Race riots in not just Atlanta but East St. Louis and Chicago and Washington. Segregation and discrimination in northern and midwestern factories booming out of the Great War that brought the Great Migration.
These are aftereffects of the Lost Cause movement.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
Utter nonsense. Much of the north sought to end slavery. That's not to say there weren't racists in the north, but the south was willing to fight the north to keep their slaves. The north didn't need slaves and didn't want slavery to continue.One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860. Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative".. That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights". Christianity? IN 1860s??? Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share. THERE'S --- your divide.
State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue. Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations". You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
Utter nonsense. Much of the north sought to end slavery. That's not to say there weren't racists in the north, but the south was willing to fight the north to keep their slaves. The north didn't need slaves and didn't want slavery to continue.One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860. Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative".. That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights". Christianity? IN 1860s??? Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share. THERE'S --- your divide.
State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue. Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations". You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
Fast forward to the mid-60's and it was still north versus south where almost everyone in Congress in the north, regardless of political party, voted for civil rights, as opposed to the south, where virtually everyone in Congress voted against it, regardless of political party.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860. Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.It never has been, and it never will be. Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative".. That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights". Christianity? IN 1860s??? Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share. THERE'S --- your divide.
One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860. Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative".. That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights". Christianity? IN 1860s??? Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share. THERE'S --- your divide.
State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue. Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations". You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
AFTER the war -- and emancipation, race relations BECAME a national issue as Blacks migrated to the North. And YOUR COUNTRY and its Federal Govt did some VERY UGLY THINGS for ANOTHER 100 FUCKING YEARS to Black Americans. THAT 100 years of oppression, segregation, and DESIGN of racial divides is equally on North and South. NO ONE's hands are clean from that period.
Utter nonsense. Much of the north sought to end slavery. That's not to say there weren't racists in the north, but the south was willing to fight the north to keep their slaves. The north didn't need slaves and didn't want slavery to continue.One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative".. That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights". Christianity? IN 1860s??? Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share. THERE'S --- your divide.
State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue. Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations". You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
Fast forward to the mid-60's and it was still north versus south where almost everyone in Congress in the north, regardless of political party, voted for civil rights, as opposed to the south, where virtually everyone in Congress voted against it, regardless of political party.
Those figures about how MANY FREE Blacks were in the North as opposed to the FREE Blacks in the South -- went into your ears and stopped at the concrete barrier that exists there. Didn't even PAUSE to change your perception of HOW MANY actual Black people there WERE in the North in order to CREATE any racial friction.
If I have time during the rest of my life -- I'll paint you a picture or rap it to you. Don't think you're interested in actually LEARNING anything about history here. Just spewing the recent modern political tribal venom.
One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860. Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative".. That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights". Christianity? IN 1860s??? Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share. THERE'S --- your divide.
State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue. Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations". You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
The Northern states had had slavery- and had abolished it by 1860- other than I believe Delaware. It wasn't a foreign issue to the North- it was a source of embaressment and conflict- Southerners demanded that escaped slaves be returned- and Northern states tried to prevent that from happening.
But explaining why the Confederate slave states were more racist still doesn't change that they were more racist- though frankly by our standards virtually everyone in 1860 would be considered a racist.
Which is why this thread is somewhat ironic- the attempt to paint the Democrats as the party of racism- when both parties were quite racist in 1860.
I am a bit confused about your posts though- you said the thread was getting heated up- and put a hold on the thread- because it was getting too personal- and yet here you are insulting the poster's education.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
Yet of course that is exactly the purpose of this thread.
To create a binary revisionist history that the Democratic Party was the only racist institution in America- and that the Democratic Party of today is the same party as it was in 1858- or 1920- and that the Republican Party of today is the same party as it was in 1860.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?
Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?
Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.
The same values held by many Northern states just 4 years earlier.Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860. Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.It never has been, and it never will be. Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?
Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?
Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.
As I've been relentlessly pointing out from the beginning on this issue, monument removal not only in no way "removes" history, nor is the history of the Civil War some obscure arcane event that nobody knows --- it's actually energizing knowledge of history by drawing attention to the Lost Cause and its UDC that put all these propaganda pieces up for the purpose of revising that history. And that is more of an obscurity that needs to be known. So ironically the attention to various cities removing said propaganda pieces in fact does the opposite of what the "removing history" parrots squawk about; it opens a door, and a vital one.
These monuments all went up about 40-50 years after the War was over. Are we to believe that in those intervening years, there was no history until monuments and statues created it? Hardly; the history was all too known and all too real. That's why it had to be revised. You don't run around putting up hundreds of statues and monuments and plaques to impart stories that everybody already believes.
A Big shocker for the folks who only know the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
In the Lower South --- the free Blacks had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860
White Free black Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes. A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show. "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
Well yeah. That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate. Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts. That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them. Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes. Wars just ain't that simple.
AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?
Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?
Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.
As I've been relentlessly pointing out from the beginning on this issue, monument removal not only in no way "removes" history, nor is the history of the Civil War some obscure arcane event that nobody knows --- it's actually energizing knowledge of history by drawing attention to the Lost Cause and its UDC that put all these propaganda pieces up for the purpose of revising that history. And that is more of an obscurity that needs to be known. So ironically the attention to various cities removing said propaganda pieces in fact does the opposite of what the "removing history" parrots squawk about; it opens a door, and a vital one.
These monuments all went up about 40-50 years after the War was over. Are we to believe that in those intervening years, there was no history until monuments and statues created it? Hardly; the history was all too known and all too real. That's why it had to be revised. You don't run around putting up hundreds of statues and monuments and plaques to impart stories that everybody already believes.
And books about the Civil War continue to get published, and making the best sellers lists.
Odd isn't it- that there are all these people who complain about 'revisionist history' when it comes to removal of statues honoring those who fought against the United States- but none of them seem to be interested when you point out that the KKK was not founded by the Democratic Party?
southern democrats....Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
The very same Democrats who are personified by Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
'
The very same Republicans who are personified by Donald 'the rapist' Trump
“And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
“I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
Trump Condemned Racism As 'Evil.' Here Are 16 Times He Embraced It. | HuffPost
