Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

[JimBowie1958]

during the War Between The States (which is the correct official name for the conflict).

You mean the American Civil War.

I think you both are trying to refer to the War of Northern Aggression and Conquest.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY, YOU UNAMERICAN SCUMBAG. Take your RIDICULOUS hate, shove it up your ass, and go find some other country where you can have it packed nice and hard the way you like it. You're no American, North, South, East, or West. You are just another irrelevant big-mouth loser who will NEVER have the courage of his convictions. Stop pretending to have principles, PUSSY.

Go piss into the wind.

You are also welcome to leave my ONE nation.

But for how much longer will it remain united?

I hear a lot of people saying it might be best for red and blue states to go their own seperate ways, and usually from liberals.

 

[Unkotare]

If the south would have won the War of Northern Aggression.

You mean the American Civil War.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Military crime occurs in all wars. The Soviet soldiers raped, murdered and terrorized East Prussia at the end of WWII and then tore Berlin apart. American soldiers massacred German guards in liberated concentration camps, or formed rings in which Jews with clubs were allowed to beat the guards to death. American Marines and grunts took very few prisoners in the Pacific, even when Japanese tried to surrender.

Camp Douglas? Significant to those who suffered as well as those at Andersonville.

You also wrote this:

Because we all make mistakes means we can't judge? Wow, try that it philosophy class or in Sunday School class, and we all watch you be bid farewell.

Present-ism does not preclude me from judging the Holocaust, or American slavery, or the almost complete eradication of Native America from 1500 to 1600, or Ghengis Khan's devastations, or the Inquisition -- does not prevent me from judging them as morally and colossally evil.

So, again, make up your mind. Is it no big deal because "everyone does it" or not.

 

[Unkotare]

You mean bigots like Lincoln who wouldnt touch the skin of a black man,

That kind of bigot?

He touched the skin of a black man when he shook hands with Frederick Douglass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not my problem if you can't understand clear precise English.

Use a dictionary if you are having trouble understanding.

Military crime occurs in all wars. The Soviet soldiers raped, murdered and terrorized East Prussia at the end of WWII and then tore Berlin apart. American soldiers massacred German guards in liberated concentration camps, or formed rings in which Jews with clubs were allowed to beat the guards to death. American Marines and grunts took very few prisoners in the Pacific, even when Japanese tried to surrender.

Camp Douglas? Significant to those who suffered as well as those at Andersonville.

You also wrote this:

Because we all make mistakes means we can't judge? Wow, try that it philosophy class or in Sunday School class, and we all watch you be bid farewell.

Present-ism does not preclude me from judging the Holocaust, or American slavery, or the almost complete eradication of Native America from 1500 to 1600, or Ghengis Khan's devastations, or the Inquisition -- does not prevent me from judging them as morally and colossally evil.

So, again, make up your mind. Is it no big deal because "everyone does it" or not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the south would have won the War of Northern Aggression.

You mean the American Civil War.

No, I think he is refering to the War of Yankee Rape, Pillage, Conquest and Abomination.

Glad to help.

Lol, seriously, you do realize that if the WoNA was happening today, Sherman, Grant and Lincoln would be international war criminals, just like Assad, right?

 

[Unkotare]

Go piss into the wind.

You are also welcome to leave my ONE nation.

But for how much longer will it remain united?

Centuries. The few crazy fools on this thread still smarting from the Civil War represent nothing but a tiny, infantile, irrelevant minority.

 

[Unkotare]

If the south would have won the War of Northern Aggression.

You mean the American Civil War.

No, I think he is refering to the War of Yankee Rape, Pillage, Conquest and Abomination.

Nope. The American Civil War.

 

[bodecea]

censored any anti- slavery material....it was against the law in the South to have a copy of Uncle Toms Cabin

Against the law ? Not so sure.

Banned Books: Uncle Tom's Cabin: Paul's Review

 

[bodecea]

There were many attempts at compromise. The Missouri Compromise. Slave importation already had been banned.

Many Southrons supported Lincoln's plan to repatriate African slaves and his other proposals to incrementally outlaw slavery over the course of years. Industrial revolutions were making chattel slavery less cost efficient.

Btw...the Dred Scott decision blew ALL compromises out of the water.

SCOTUS does settle law.

Yes it did...but the South decided, when Lincoln was elected to withdraw from the U.S. (and its laws)...and then fired on a U.S. installation. They put themselves beyond the law...and then attacked the U.S. It amazes me the # of Southerners who expected the President of the United States to just roll over and take an armed attack on U.S. property. Do they feel the same way today about any attack on U.S. property?

 

[bripat9643]

We were the ones in charge, little one, and your ancestors bowed before mine during and after the Civil War.

So you're an advocate of the "might makes right" school of ethics?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You mean bigots like Lincoln who wouldnt touch the skin of a black man,

That kind of bigot?

He touched the skin of a black man when he shook hands with Frederick Douglass.

I am speaking of the average black man on the street, not exceptional men like Douglass who served Lincoln well.

You do realize that Lincoln was opposed to blacks marrying whites and integration, right?

By todays standards there is no doubt that Lincoln would be considered a bigot by almost everyone.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Not my problem if you can't understand clear precise English."

Not my problem that you are unable to write it or that you are determined to argue both sides of a moral issue depending on what example you are addressing.

 

[bripat9643]

We were the ones in charge, little one, and your ancestors bowed before mine during and after the Civil War.

My ancestors fought against the Southern traitors and held our home counties for the Union.

It appears that you are descended from a long line of servile gullible morons.

You include yourself in the class called "honorable men?"

That's hysterical, Fakey.

What is the justification for your high self-esteem? Certainly it isn't anything you've ever posted in this forum, unless you believe honor consists of being the forums biggest poltroon.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You mean the American Civil War.

No, I think he is refering to the War of Yankee Rape, Pillage, Conquest and Abomination.

Nope. The American Civil War.

Really? A civil war?

That refers to a war among civilian populations that does not align with existing governments, right?

According to the dictionary: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

"a war between groups of people in the same country" and yet people in 1860 did not consider themselves "Americans" nearly so much as they considered themelves part of their individual state. A person from Virginia would say if asked his nationality that he was a Virginian, a citizen of the sovereign state of Virginia, etc. The view of the federal government, which was relatively small and powerless compared to todays federal government, was that the federal government was something of a representation of all the states united together only and not the government of a nation in and of itself.

The secession was going realtively unopposed by Lincoln and the Northern states untill the Confederacy decided to adopt a free trade zone policy that would have allowed British manufactured goods to flow straight into Northern markets and destroy Northern idustries.

Then they raised a huge army and tried to literally invade the South, repeatedly until they finally got their way through nothing less than utterly naked aggression, rapage, pillage, plunder and attrocity.

Obviously anyone can continue to call it a 'civil war' all they like but the phrase is not the best for describing the nature and conduct of that war, not by a long shot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We were the ones in charge, little one, and your ancestors bowed before mine during and after the Civil War.

It appears that you are descended from a long line of servile gullible morons.

You include yourself in the class called "honorable men?"

That's hysterical, Fakey.

What is the justification for your high self-esteem? Certainly it isn't anything you've ever posted in this forum, unless you believe honor consists of being the forums biggest poltroon.

Starkey is a deluded ass hat anti-Christian bigot. If you want to wrestle with that Tar Baby troll, be my guest, but you wont dent his thick head one bit.

Post for the humor and the benefit of others who may read your posts; Starkey himself is a waste of time.

 

[bripat9643]

Because we all make mistakes means we can't judge? Wow, try that it philosophy class or in Sunday School class, and we all watch you be bid farewell.

Present-ism does not preclude me from judging the Holocaust, or American slavery, or the almost complete eradication of Native America from 1500 to 1600, or Ghengis Khan's devastations, or the Inquisition -- does not prevent me from judging them as morally and colossally evil.

Then you should judge Lincoln as a tyrant and a warmonger. He abolished habeas corpus, executed Americans without a trial, made war on his fellow Americans, raised an army without congressional approval, had Americans arrested and thrown in a Gulag without a trial, ordered the murder of 50,000 Americans, destroyed private property, condoned and even encouraged rape, shut down opposition newspapers. yada, yada, yada . . . This list of his atrocities and assaults on the Constitution virtually is endless.

Where is your "judgement" on Lincoln and his sleazy gang, eh Mr. "honorable man?"

 

[bripat9643]

Constitutional sanction does not (1) make slavery morally acceptable, or (2) prevent slavery from being condemned.

True, but it does mean that slavery is no basis for the federal government to invade a state of the union.

As one pro-abolition editor opined, the Constitution was a pact with the devil, until slavery was abolished.

Nevertheless, it was a legal pact approved by the majority. Aren't turds like you always saying that a majority vote justifies anything?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Btw...the Dred Scott decision blew ALL compromises out of the water.

SCOTUS does settle law.

Yes it did...but the South decided, when Lincoln was elected to withdraw from the U.S. (and its laws)...and then fired on a U.S. installation. They put themselves beyond the law...and then attacked the U.S. It amazes me the # of Southerners who expected the President of the United States to just roll over and take an armed attack on U.S. property. Do they feel the same way today about any attack on U.S. property?

Do you think everyone would be OK with foreign troops occuping Ellis Island? No, it would be considered an act of war just as it was with Ft. Sumpter.