Memphis City Council unanimously votes to dig up Confederate General, wife

[Camp]

Isn't there a LAW to desecrating a grave?

If this is true, then they need to dig up the families of everyone who voted for this

this should be good Advertising FOR THE state. come visit the state that digs up GRAVES of people they decide to hate

what a rat hole Memphis has become

They dug him and his wife up to put them were they are now. The proposal is to put them back where they were originally buried.

The PROPOSAL is INTENDED to STIR THE POT, by RADICALS and RACISTS.

You're not kidding anyone. What the intentions here are, are obvious.

The Memphis city council is made up of 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 7 or them are white and 6 or them are black. Those are the people you are accusing of stirring up the pot by casting a unanimous vote to move the burial site and memorial to a guy who was accused to shooting captured Union POW's because they were black. Ordered his troops to shoot them as they begged for mercy. Was an early member, if not one of the founders, of the KKK when it instigated violence and hate against blacks that including dragging fathers out of their homes and hanging them in front of their wives and children. A true terrorist of epic proportion is the guy you assholes are defending.

 

[defcon4]

I think they want a civil war. The left does. They think since Obamas presidency is fading and they didnt get most of what they wanted...they now just wanna turn to anarchy. All lefties eventually do. They worship Che. A violent racist himself.

anybody who would think this move would lead to a civil war is an idiot asshole wishing for a chance to shoot at people they disagree with politically.

Ever heard the old saying, "the straw that broke the camels back?"

ever heard the old saying 'fuck you if you want to kill your fellow americans for disagreeing with you?'

there will be no civil war, no matter how much you ignorant fucks want it. and if there were a civil war it certainly would have nothing to do with moving the grave of a confederate general.

You just made me want one even more now telling me to fuck off.

YES, THERE WILL BE another civil war, or revolutionary war, or national unrest, or anarchy, whatever you want to call it, but IT, IS, COMING.

I know that scares the fuck otta you little pussy progs because none of you could fight your way out of a water paper sack, and the vast majority of you don't own a gun. To me, that's the beauty of it.

typing that was probably the closest you've gotten to an erection in years.

doesn't matter though, you can have your little fantasy porn of offing other americans, but unless you decide to go all james holmes it isn't going to happen.

hahaha… no knowledge about ISIS' cultural and religious cleansing including massacres, no clue about totalitarian censorship throughout the history of mankind >>> no ability to discern about the signs of those efforts.
YOU KNOW WHY???? hahaha.. His is constantly focused on people's erection, in this case he is fantasizing about 007's erection!!! He is mad at 007 because he assumes that 007 did not have an erection for years!!!! This is hilarious!!!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Ulysses S. Grant Jew-Hater and Slave Owner Cranky Notions

So what was Grant’s relationship with slavery? Compared to the man who supposedly fought to defend slavery, it doesn’t look so good. Amazingly, before the war he was an overseer of slaves on his wealthy father-in-law’s 850 acre plantation known as White Haven in Missouri. These slaves were owned by Grant and his father-in-law until 1865. Wait – 1865? What about Lincoln’s ‘Emancipation’ Proclamation in 1863?

Well, it turns out that the much-celebrated Proclamation only applied to ”rebel territory” and specifically exempted the several states in the Union which had slavery (which is proof enough that this war was simply not waged to end slavery). It did not free a single slave. The ‘Emancipation’ Proclamation served two purposes for Lincoln. Firstly, it was a military measure designed to incite slaves in the Confederacy to rebel. This is a prospect the Confederate states certainly dreaded, with a large proportion of able-bodied men away from home women and children would be most vulnerable to slave violence and the Cotton States would be in turmoil. This fear never materialized, and many blacks fought with the Confederate forces when they were allowed to do so towards the end of the war. The other purpose of the Proclamation was that by making slavery a war aim, it would discourage the European powers, especially Britain, from supporting the Confederates. The ‘Emancipation’ Proclamation was a farce and widely recognised as such in the American and British newspapers at the time.

So Grant would hold on to his slaves until Missouri state law forced his family to free them after the war.

Grant was also at the center of one of the most blatant anti-Jewish actions in American history. I’m willing to bet all I have that this would be far better known if it were committed by a Confederate.

In December 1862, Grant issued General Order # 11, which expelled all Jews from the three states of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the “Department of the Tennessee,” an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters. No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits.



In contrast...........Lee got rid of his slaves well before the War and Hated Slavery...................

 

[bucs90]

I think they want a civil war. The left does. They think since Obamas presidency is fading and they didnt get most of what they wanted...they now just wanna turn to anarchy. All lefties eventually do. They worship Che. A violent racist himself.

anybody who would think this move would lead to a civil war is an idiot asshole wishing for a chance to shoot at people they disagree with politically.

Ever heard the old saying, "the straw that broke the camels back?"

ever heard the old saying 'fuck you if you want to kill your fellow americans for disagreeing with you?'

there will be no civil war, no matter how much you ignorant fucks want it. and if there were a civil war it certainly would have nothing to do with moving the grave of a confederate general.

You just made me want one even more now telling me to fuck off.

YES, THERE WILL BE another civil war, or revolutionary war, or national unrest, or anarchy, whatever you want to call it, but IT, IS, COMING.

I know that scares the fuck otta you little pussy progs because none of you could fight your way out of a water paper sack, and the vast majority of you don't own a gun. To me, that's the beauty of it. You're all a bunch of little candy ass city slickers.

Thats what terrifies liberals. IF something like that happened....they'd be begging for protection....from the same cops and military they've demonized for a decade. Guess whose side they'll be on??

 

[ogibillm]

Forrest is a horrible choice for confederate supporters to use as a situation or example to make a stand.

It is not the support for Confederate issues. Look at the broader picture. It is a defense against the political, cultural and historical cleansing.

what history do you think is being 'cleansed?'

if anything this is putting history in it's proper context. i mean we'll actually have people on here pretending that the civil war was fought over something other than slavery. fuckwads! it doesn't get more ignorant than that, and yet we don't shun it the way we do holocaust deniers. wtf?

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

 

[007]

Isn't there a LAW to desecrating a grave?

If this is true, then they need to dig up the families of everyone who voted for this

this should be good Advertising FOR THE state. come visit the state that digs up GRAVES of people they decide to hate

what a rat hole Memphis has become

They dug him and his wife up to put them were they are now. The proposal is to put them back where they were originally buried.

The PROPOSAL is INTENDED to STIR THE POT, by RADICALS and RACISTS.

You're not kidding anyone. What the intentions here are, are obvious.

The Memphis city council is made up of 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 7 or them are white and 6 or them are black. Those are the people you are accusing of stirring up the pot by casting a unanimous vote to move the burial site and memorial to a guy who was accused to shooting captured Union POW's because they were black. Ordered his troops to shoot them as they begged for mercy. Was an early member, if not one of the founders, of the KKK when it instigated violence and hate against blacks that including dragging fathers out of their homes and hanging them in front of their wives and children. A true terrorist of epic proportion is the guy you assholes are defending.

Then why not ignore it? Why this LETS DIG HIM UP bit? What's it all about?

WHY STOP WITH HIM? WHY NOT FIND EVERY SINGLE THING IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT IS SIMILAR IN NATURE, DIG IT UP AND REWRITE HISTORY?

The INTENTION here is to PLACATE YOU FUCKING LEFTIST RACISTS, because it is YOU mother fuckers that have your GOD DAMN DEPENDS PULLED UP YOUR ASS CRACK. You took ONE EVENT and have been on an EXPLODING HEAD RAMPAGE about EVERYTHING SOUTHERN EVER SINCE! WHEN DOES IT END? WHERE DOES IT END?

WHEN YOU'VE FINALLY STARTED ANOTHER CIVIL WAR?

Because believe me, YOU'RE PISSING PEOPLE OFF, and if you don't REALIZE that, then you're dumber than a fucking sack of hammers.

You're PUSHING IT, and PUSHING YOUR LUCK.

Our history is our history, LET IT BE.

 

[ogibillm]

I think they want a civil war. The left does. They think since Obamas presidency is fading and they didnt get most of what they wanted...they now just wanna turn to anarchy. All lefties eventually do. They worship Che. A violent racist himself.

anybody who would think this move would lead to a civil war is an idiot asshole wishing for a chance to shoot at people they disagree with politically.

Ever heard the old saying, "the straw that broke the camels back?"

ever heard the old saying 'fuck you if you want to kill your fellow americans for disagreeing with you?'

there will be no civil war, no matter how much you ignorant fucks want it. and if there were a civil war it certainly would have nothing to do with moving the grave of a confederate general.

You just made me want one even more now telling me to fuck off.

YES, THERE WILL BE another civil war, or revolutionary war, or national unrest, or anarchy, whatever you want to call it, but IT, IS, COMING.

I know that scares the fuck otta you little pussy progs because none of you could fight your way out of a water paper sack, and the vast majority of you don't own a gun. To me, that's the beauty of it. You're all a bunch of little candy ass city slickers.

Thats what terrifies liberals. IF something like that happened....they'd be begging for protection....from the same cops and military they've demonized for a decade. Guess whose side they'll be on??

i'm going to go with the law abiding citizens... so not those with a hard-on for civil war.

 

[eagle1462010]

Forrest is a horrible choice for confederate supporters to use as a situation or example to make a stand.

It is not the support for Confederate issues. Look at the broader picture. It is a defense against the political, cultural and historical cleansing.

what history do you think is being 'cleansed?'

if anything this is putting history in it's proper context. i mean we'll actually have people on here pretending that the civil war was fought over something other than slavery. fuckwads! it doesn't get more ignorant than that, and yet we don't shun it the way we do holocaust deniers. wtf?

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

George Washington owned Slaves........................Is on our currency..................and is on Mount Rushmore................

Please continue..............................

 

[Obiwan]

Ogibillm

After all this flap, Forrest may not vote Democrat in the next election!!!!

 

[ogibillm]

Isn't there a LAW to desecrating a grave?

If this is true, then they need to dig up the families of everyone who voted for this

this should be good Advertising FOR THE state. come visit the state that digs up GRAVES of people they decide to hate

what a rat hole Memphis has become

They dug him and his wife up to put them were they are now. The proposal is to put them back where they were originally buried.

The PROPOSAL is INTENDED to STIR THE POT, by RADICALS and RACISTS.

You're not kidding anyone. What the intentions here are, are obvious.

The Memphis city council is made up of 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 7 or them are white and 6 or them are black. Those are the people you are accusing of stirring up the pot by casting a unanimous vote to move the burial site and memorial to a guy who was accused to shooting captured Union POW's because they were black. Ordered his troops to shoot them as they begged for mercy. Was an early member, if not one of the founders, of the KKK when it instigated violence and hate against blacks that including dragging fathers out of their homes and hanging them in front of their wives and children. A true terrorist of epic proportion is the guy you assholes are defending.

Then why not ignore it? Why this LETS DIG HIM UP bit? What's it all about?

WHY STOP WITH HIM? WHY NOT FIND EVERY SINGLE THING IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT IS SIMILAR IN NATURE, DIG IT, AND REWRITE HISTORY?

The INTENTION here is PLACATE YOU FUCKING LEFTIST RACISTS, because it is YOU mother fuckers that have your GOD DAMN DEPENDS PULLED UP YOUR ASS CRACK. You took ONE EVENT and have been on an EXPLODING HEAD RAMPAGE about EVERYTHING SOUTHERN EVER SINCE! WHEN DOES IT END? WHERE DOES IT END?

WHEN YOU'VE FINALLY STARTED ANOTHER CIVIL WAR?

Because believe me, YOU'RE PISSING PEOPLE OFF, and if you don't REALIZE that, then you're dumber than a fucking sack of hammers.

You're PUSHING IT, and PUSHING YOUR LUCK.

Our history is our history, LET IT BE.

please explain how moving a grave is rewriting history.

 

[ogibillm]

Forrest is a horrible choice for confederate supporters to use as a situation or example to make a stand.

It is not the support for Confederate issues. Look at the broader picture. It is a defense against the political, cultural and historical cleansing.

what history do you think is being 'cleansed?'

if anything this is putting history in it's proper context. i mean we'll actually have people on here pretending that the civil war was fought over something other than slavery. fuckwads! it doesn't get more ignorant than that, and yet we don't shun it the way we do holocaust deniers. wtf?

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

George Washington owned Slaves........................Is on our currency..................and is on Mount Rushmore................

Please continue..............................

was he a traitor to this country?

 

[eagle1462010]

Grant owned slaves.................What should be done with Grant's Tomb.....................He didn't free them until forced to do so after the War.........

Oh.............My.............Fucking..................GOD............oops Liberals find God Offensive too.......................HE WAS PRESIDENT...............

He's on money too................What are we to do.............

Holy shit................General Custer killed INDIANS and a PARK IS NAMED AFTER HIM.................THE HORROR.................

The Term GHETTO came from SLUMS in the North working in the factories..................................THAT IS OFFENSIVE..............Strike that Word down immediatly....................

SOMEONE MIGHT BE OFFENDED..............................THE SHAME..............

 

[eagle1462010]

It is not the support for Confederate issues. Look at the broader picture. It is a defense against the political, cultural and historical cleansing.

what history do you think is being 'cleansed?'

if anything this is putting history in it's proper context. i mean we'll actually have people on here pretending that the civil war was fought over something other than slavery. fuckwads! it doesn't get more ignorant than that, and yet we don't shun it the way we do holocaust deniers. wtf?

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

George Washington owned Slaves........................Is on our currency..................and is on Mount Rushmore................

Please continue..............................

was he a traitor to this country?

He founded this country..........................He owned Slaves.............................DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE YOUR BATTLE...............IGNORE others who owned them..............YES YOU DO.................

Your a HYPOCRITE...............

 

[ogibillm]

what history do you think is being 'cleansed?'

if anything this is putting history in it's proper context. i mean we'll actually have people on here pretending that the civil war was fought over something other than slavery. fuckwads! it doesn't get more ignorant than that, and yet we don't shun it the way we do holocaust deniers. wtf?

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

George Washington owned Slaves........................Is on our currency..................and is on Mount Rushmore................

Please continue..............................

was he a traitor to this country?

He founded this country..........................He owned Slaves.............................DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE YOUR BATTLE...............IGNORE others who owned them..............YES YOU DO.................

Your a HYPOCRITE...............

no, i'm a moral relativist. slavery is wrong, always has been and will be. but i don't fault george washington for being less enlightened on that fact during his time.
on the other hand i don't pretend that the civil war was fought over anything other than slavery, or that those fighting in the south were anything other than traitors.

 

[defcon4]

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

Again, you are shifting the focus from a bigger picture. You are unable or maybe unwilling to see this is about resisting the efforts to revise history again and again and again by eradicating even the memory of historical figures, eradicating the facts of historical events.

 

[Camp]

They probably should dig up Forrest and dump his remains in the county landfill.

britannica.com/event/Fort-Pillow-Massacre

history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-pillow-massacre

 

[ogibillm]

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

Again, you are shifting the focus from a bigger picture. You are unable or maybe unwilling to see this is about resisting the efforts to revise history again and again and again by eradicating even the memory of historical figures, eradicating the facts of historical events.

how is history being revised? his memory isn't being eradicated, if anything he's being better remembered now than he was with the statue and memorial.

 

[defcon4]

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

George Washington owned Slaves........................Is on our currency..................and is on Mount Rushmore................

Please continue..............................

was he a traitor to this country?

He founded this country..........................He owned Slaves.............................DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE YOUR BATTLE...............IGNORE others who owned them..............YES YOU DO.................

Your a HYPOCRITE...............

no, i'm a moral relativist. slavery is wrong, always has been and will be. but i don't fault george washington for being less enlightened on that fact during his time.
on the other hand i don't pretend that the civil war was fought over anything other than slavery, or that those fighting in the south were anything other than traitors.

Who said, please be specific that slavery was the right thing throughout this thread. You are just too dumb to see the bigger picture. Brainwashed bot of your masters.

 

[eagle1462010]

Wow!!! "...putting history in it's proper context." Can you explain how that process works? Maybe everybody can see what your "putting in proper context" means below:
"What Is History? is a study of historiography that was written by the English historian E.H. Carr. … […] Carr contends that historians arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[3]"
What Is History - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, putting history in its proper context. as in the traitorous general fuckwad buried in memphis is not someone to be admired or emulated, and should not have a statue or large memorial devoted to him.

George Washington owned Slaves........................Is on our currency..................and is on Mount Rushmore................

Please continue..............................

was he a traitor to this country?

He founded this country..........................He owned Slaves.............................DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE YOUR BATTLE...............IGNORE others who owned them..............YES YOU DO.................

Your a HYPOCRITE...............

no, i'm a moral relativist. slavery is wrong, always has been and will be. but i don't fault george washington for being less enlightened on that fact during his time.
on the other hand i don't pretend that the civil war was fought over anything other than slavery, or that those fighting in the south were anything other than traitors.

Excuses.............................If we ban every damned thing in this country that offends someone then there will be nothing fucking left...........

It is ignorant person who thinks forcing a grave to be moved or a flag taken down will do a damned thing..............It does the opposite..................it fans the flames that were dormant and turns them into a FORREST FIRE..............................

The issue isn't that Forrest wasn't a scum bucket..............it is banning old shit that doesn't serve anything but creating BS in this country.............

Let sleeping dogs..........................................................You get the point........

Your side is fanning the flames to utter INSANITY.............

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Before we go forward much further, I would highly suggest all Dimocrats and or liberals read Ray Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'.

so no longer paying tribute to traitors and slavery proponents is now the same as book burning? get a grip.

I have felt for many years the flag should be removed from public buildings.
Having said that however, the left more and more concerns me about the way they work to silence people, or the way some on the left will call for a movie like Gone With the Wind to be banned, or getting rid of a TV series like Daniel Boone, or Dukes Of Hazard, etc.