Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

[JakeStarkey]

The present-ism being placed on this by you, The Gadfly, not those who are appropriate correcting you on your errors.

Came down farther than that.

Federalized authority outlawing your Constitutionally protected, Supreme Court upheld property (which is the engine of your agrarian livelihood) is not what the States signed on for.

It is the process.

If the Federalists can do that, there is no State.

Just as a civil war over the Federal authority and "Obamacare" would not be about restricting healthcare availabilty.

That is one sick mother fucking post

Defending the right to own property when that property is another human being

That's "presentism" which is an historical fallacy. I doubt you'd care to have your own morality judged by whatever the standard is 150 years from now. Yes, at the time, my ancestors owned slaves, but while they may have thought of them as lesser beings (often viewing them as a childlike race in need of supervision and discipline) they (along with most Southerners) thought it wrong to abuse, neglect, or mistreat slaves, and treated them with considerable kindness, by the standards of the time. Yankee "free soilers", by contrast, hated and despised the Blacks, did not want them anywhere, and the original intent was to deport them all to Africa or South America. Can you truly say one was worse than the other?

 

[bripat9643]

Utterly ridiculous. The underlying causes of conflict had been building since the drafting of the Constitution itself. Compromise after compromise delayed the inevitable for a time, but the fundamental issues could not be avoided forever, nor should they have been.

There was nothing "inevitable" about Lincoln sending an army to invade the Confederate states.

Of course there was. You are ignorant of history and blinded by your ridiculous fantasies.

Of course there wasn't. Nothing except Lincoln's whims caused the North to invade the South. Lincoln could just as easily have decided not to invade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A minor correction. Only Haiti and the USA required war to get rid of slavery, then the American whites treated all peoples of color almost as if they were dogs.

Slaves were human beings that the South illegally traded as property. When offered the choice of belonging to the greatest country on earth or own other human beings......They chose slavery

It is a scar on the south to this day

sorry, slevery WAS legal and not just in the US . Yet the white southerners are the only ones blamed for slavery.

Kinda make you wonder why

Every other Western Nation got rid of their slavery PEACEFULLY before the U.S. did. Even Mexico. The Southern slaveholders couldn't even STAND the possibility that they were not going to be allowed to spread slavery into the Western territories. So, they started a war...lost it...and their descendents are still whining about it.

 

[bodecea]

There was nothing "inevitable" about Lincoln sending an army to invade the Confederate states.

Of course there was. You are ignorant of history and blinded by your ridiculous fantasies.

Of course there wasn't. Nothing except Lincoln's whims caused the North to invade the South. Linconl could just as easily have decided not to invade.

Again, you are showing that you are an appeaser. The South fired on a Federal Installation, unprovoked. You wanted the U.S. Government to just roll over and take it. You'd probably even want the U.S. Government to send an apology to the South with money to pay for the cannonballs they expended pounding that U.S. property.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The deluison, as usual, is yours. Perpetual Union was the death knell of the Old South.

There was nothing "inevitable" about Lincoln sending an army to invade the Confederate states.

Of course there was. You are ignorant of history and blinded by your ridiculous fantasies.

Of course there wasn't. Nothing except Lincoln's whims caused the North to invade the South. Linconl could just as easily have decided not to invade.

 

[bodecea]

A minor correction. Only Haiti and the USA required war to get rid of slavery, then the American whites treated all peoples of color almost as if they were dogs.

sorry, slevery WAS legal and not just in the US . Yet the white southerners are the only ones blamed for slavery.

Kinda make you wonder why

Every other Western Nation got rid of their slavery PEACEFULLY before the U.S. did. Even Mexico. The Southern slaveholders couldn't even STAND the possibility that they were not going to be allowed to spread slavery into the Western territories. So, they started a war...lost it...and their descendents are still whining about it.

You are right...I forgot about Haiti....which was a very interesting case. That revolt is a prime cause of Napolean selling us the Louisiana Territory....and the South was very nervous about what was going on there....terrified it would spread to the U.S.

 

[bripat9643]

A false analogy deflection as well as tu quoque. Neither work. Both sides commit war crimes so we can't condemn either side. Of course we can.

We are talking about the asshole Bedford Forrest here.

All you CSA defenders check out Fort Pillow, then crawl away and shut the ___ up.

So? The atrocities committed by the union army were too numerous to count.

The asshole William Tecumsah Sherman murderd 50,000 civilians on his march to the sea. Not to mention all the rape, theft, property destruction and looting they reveled in - under orders.

Your crodcodile tears about the inhabitants of Fort Pillow aren't fooling anyone.

 

[bodecea]

A false analogy deflection as well as tu quoque. Neither work. Both sides commit war crimes so we can't condemn either side. Of course we can.

We are talking about the asshole Bedford Forrest here.

So? The atrocities committed by the union army were too numerous to count.

The asshole William Tecumsah Sherman murderd 50,000 civilians on his march to the sea. Not to mention all the rape, theft, property destruction and looting they reveled in - under orders.

Your crodcodile tears about the inhabitants of Fort Pillow aren't fooling anyone.

The South got off easy...Sherman should have turned West too and marched to Texas along the Deep South.

 

[bripat9643]

It's only the end of the story for morons. Property is one thing. Teritory is another. Our government doesn't have any right to invade soveriegn countries if they evict it from property it owns there.

That's international law, you stupid turd.

The property was federal, end of subject. Finis. Period. It belonged to the Union, which had the right to protect it from unjust seizure.

The southern states seized federal property.

It was in the territory of South Carolina. Do you think if the U.S. government owned some property in Venezuela and the government of Venezuela sized it that Obama would have the right to send in the bombers?

The union army invaded nothing, simply reacquired constitutional, electoral control of the dumbos at the point of a bayonet. What a bunch of idiots.

Lincoln had no constitutional authority to raise an army without the authorization of Congress and send it into any state of the union to attack the citizens of that state.

 

[bripat9643]

Where does the Constitution say that?

False argument. The southern states joined in perpetual union and gave up their individual sovereignty.

The Southern states existed before the United States, dipshit.

 

[rightwinger]

Slaves were property; property Northern abolitionists wished to take by force, rather than pay compensation for (as was done in other nations which abolished chattel slavery PEACEFULLY). I note that when Yankees freed THEIR slaves, they SOLD the majority of them-to the SOUTH! What hypocrisy! First and foremost, the WAR was really fought over what wars are usually fought over-MONEY!

Incidentally, the Yankees were so solicitous of the welfare of the slaves they supposedly came down here to "liberate" that they raped and murdered them by the bushel. You can find these war crimes copiously documented in the "Official Records-War of the Rebellion", which is the U.S. War Department's official history of the conflict, and a recognized primary academic historical source for professional and amateur historians alike. The War was far from being the simplistic morality play (with the protagonists being the "Virtuous" North, and the "evil" South) Yankees like to portray it as.

Slaves were human beings that the South illegally traded as property. When offered the choice of belonging to the greatest country on earth or own other human beings......They chose slavery

It is a scar on the south to this day

I actually agree with the last sentence; though I'd point out it might have been less so, had the "peculiar institution" been allowed to die a natural death through gradual compensated emancipation and mechanized agriculture. The first was never allowed to happen, and the second came two decades too late. Educated Southerners at the time understood that chattel slavery was becoming a political, social and economic liability. Gen. Lee had freed his slaves years before the war; Jefferson Davis and his brother were beginning to educate their slaves, to prepare them for the responsibility of being free citizens. The problem was that so much of the South's capital was tied up in human chattel. This was not an insoluble problem for America as a whole, but with the North having little to gain for itself, the political will necessary was lacking. The 1860 election victory by what was at the time a purely sectional party was the last straw, from the Southern point of view; they saw little hope of compromise with the Radical Republicans of New England (and were probably correct in that assessment).

We will never know, alas, what might have been, had Lincoln taken Horace Greeley's advice, and let the South go. It seems likely that slavery would have died out gradually in the second half of the nineteenth century. Jim Crow, in the virulent form we knew it, would have been something far milder, had it even existed at all. Whether the two separate nations would have eventually reunited is another question; though it is not improbable that they would have at least been on friendly terms, and both sides, spared the loss of so many of their best and ablest young men on the battlefield, might have been stronger and wiser for it. The loss of life was the equivalent of ten million today. No wonder there was no end of mythmaking, to attempt to justify that kind of carnage.

I'd like to agree with you...but I can't

A graceful withdrawal from a slave economy was not an option. The south was offered and they refused. They would only abandon their peculiar institution of slavery by the point of a gun. Slaves as property was not an economic decision, it was pure racism at it's worst
After the civil war, the south was again given a chance to abandon their peculiar institution. After 100 years they still clung to their institutional racism. Once again, they would only abandon their institutional racism by force
Claiming it was pure economics was bullshit. The south officially declared blacks as subhuman and refused to even eat or sit next to them because they were officially declared dirty. The worst crime a black in the south could commit was to act as if he were as good as a white man

 

[bripat9643]

I love knocking down bripat's silly arguments.

You must also enjoy getting your teeth knocked in.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest stirs dispute - WSFA.com: News Weather and Sports for Montgomery, AL.

Someone needs to tell that carpetbagging son of a bitch to go back up north. Oh and they should also give him a few sources showing what Sherman did on his march to the sea in my beloved south..man there ain't nothing worse than a southerner who hates the south and her heritage.

Let's rush to the defense of the bigots!

Ironic considering that's all you do.

 

[bripat9643]

The bottom line is that Lincoln had no authority to invade the Southern states - none. The Civil war was entirely the fault of greedy Yankee carpet baggers who wanted to impose crushing taxes on the South to finance their merchantilist schemes.

The South has tried to sugarcoat their culpability in the Civil War. It was merely a righteous rebellion over states rights. We treated our slaves well. Slavery had nothing to do with it

What it came down to was the South had a choice of keeping their right to own other people or belonging to the United States

They chose the former

 

[bripat9643]

The southern states seized federal property.

It was in the territory of South Carolina. Do you think if the U.S. government owned some property in Venezuela and the government of Venezuela sized it that Obama would have the right to send in the bombers?

The union army invaded nothing, simply reacquired constitutional, electoral control of the dumbos at the point of a bayonet. What a bunch of idiots.

Lincoln had no constitutional authority to raise an army without the authorization of Congress and send it into any state of the union to attack the citizens of that state.

So, if Cuba seized GITMO, you'd find it acceptable. Good to know you are an appeaser.

Cuba signed a treaty with the United States authorizing the lease of Gitmo. No such treaty existed between the federal government and South Carolina. I certainly wouldn't invade Cuba if it decided to take back Gitmo. However, superior military might is the only thing that keeps us ensconced there. It certainly isn't any kind of just legal claim.

Furthermore, even though it had leases, the phillipines kicked the US out of bases we had in that country. The British were kicked out of military bases all over the world in their former colonies. They also lost numerous government properties in those countries.

 

[bodecea]

The bottom line is that Lincoln had no authority to invade the Southern states - none. The Civil war was entirely the fault of greedy Yankee carpet baggers who wanted to impose crushing taxes on the South to finance their merchantilist schemes.

The South has tried to sugarcoat their culpability in the Civil War. It was merely a righteous rebellion over states rights. We treated our slaves well. Slavery had nothing to do with it

What it came down to was the South had a choice of keeping their right to own other people or belonging to the United States

They chose the former

The U.S. was attacked. Using YOUR appeasement philosophy, the U.S. would have had no authority to invade Europe on D-Day...no authority to invade Japan...

You wanted the North to roll over and do nothing after a Federal Installation was pounded into rubble. You are an appeaser. You are an excuser for the Evil of Slavery but a Condemner for the U.S. defending itself.

Interesting.

 

[bripat9643]

The North wasn't fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln said so on many occasions. so that argument is a non sequitur.

I would call anyone who fought to enslave their fellow man "traitors" and "scum"....yes. You disagree.

 

[rightwinger]

The bottom line is that Lincoln had no authority to invade the Southern states - none. The Civil war was entirely the fault of greedy Yankee carpet baggers who wanted to impose crushing taxes on the South to finance their merchantilist schemes.

The South has tried to sugarcoat their culpability in the Civil War. It was merely a righteous rebellion over states rights. We treated our slaves well. Slavery had nothing to do with it

What it came down to was the South had a choice of keeping their right to own other people or belonging to the United States

They chose the former

Of course he did...that is how you deal with traitors

The South had no right to secede.....none

 

[bodecea]

The North wasn't fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln said so on many occasions. so that argument is a non sequitur.

I would call anyone who fought to enslave their fellow man "traitors" and "scum"....yes. You disagree.

At first, you are correct. But the South was fighting to keep slavery intact AND to have the right to expand it.....they fought for Evil. They called down the whirlwind....and got off easy regardless.

 

[bodecea]

The bottom line is that Lincoln had no authority to invade the Southern states - none. The Civil war was entirely the fault of greedy Yankee carpet baggers who wanted to impose crushing taxes on the South to finance their merchantilist schemes.

The South has tried to sugarcoat their culpability in the Civil War. It was merely a righteous rebellion over states rights. We treated our slaves well. Slavery had nothing to do with it

What it came down to was the South had a choice of keeping their right to own other people or belonging to the United States

They chose the former

Of course he did...that is how you deal with traitors

The South had no right to secede.....none

That's debatable...but they screwed the pooch anyways when they fired on Sumter....the legality of secession became moot at that point.