Robert E Lee & The Confederate Solider statue removed in Dallas

[SandSquid]

You're not very smart, are ya?

Despite the nuances involved, the Civil War mainly pertained to states rights. States rights = the right to self determination. This is literally the exact same principle this whole goddamn country was founded upon. We didn't like how GB was telling us to live, so we rebelled. We won. Victors write the history.

On the same token the South, 100 years later, didn't like how the rest of the country was telling them to live. They rebelled. They lost. Again - VICTORS wrote the history. Virtue signal all you'd like, had the South won you'd be singing their praises - so to label them "traitors" is disingenuous at best. We're ALL fucking traitors, we just happened to come out on the winning side.

Remember that before you start denigrating an entire populace.

These Moon Bats are as ignorant of History as they are of Climate Science, Economics, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

The US (i.e. Union) was a slave country before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the Civil War.

The national debate on slavery had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was about political power.

The debate on slavery was about allowing slavery in the western expansion territories. All the great anti slavery speeches given in Congress by the Northern assholes were in the context of expanding in the West.

The fact was that if a new state was allowed to be slave then it would be dominated by Democrats. If non slave it would be dominated by Republicans.

It was all about the balance of political power in the Congress.

The Northern Republicans wanted to have a majority so that they could use the government to steal money from the cash rich Southerners. Just like they tried to do with Tariffs on Southern products in the 1850s.

Same shit that is going on today except the political parties have reversed.

Lincoln said he didn't give a shit about slavery. There are some very famous quotes. His shitty Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free the slaves in the Union. It only applied to "occupied Southern areas" and he even gave exceptions to that like in New Orleans and West Virginia. DC was built on a war footing with slaves. It was only designed to encourage the Neggras to join the filthy Union Army to become cannon fodder.

That is actually a lie. Lincoln said He was strongly opposed to slavery..

You are confused Moon Bat. History is always confusing to Moon Bats just like Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

Like all Republicans at the time he was only concerned about slavery as it pertained to the expansion to the west because that would give the Democrat power. Slavery was only a political tool to him. Most of his anti slavery statements were made in that context.

Emaciation was a military move to get more canon fodder, not freeing US slaves. Emaciation did not free slavery in the US.

Here is what he said about the Negroes and equality

“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”

Here is what he said about freeing the slaves

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Yes Lincoln did not want a war to end slavery. His opinion was that if he stopped it's expansion it would wither and die.

But obviously he wanted to end slavery as he did in Washington DC, West Virginia, throughout the South and then later throughout the entire United States.

He ran his campaign as a moderate saying he didn't want to end slavery, when his actual acts once elected were to end slavery. Then he screwed over the white supremacist a second time in his next election saying he didn't want to give blacks rights. Then in his inaugural speech, stuck it to those white supremacists AGAIN by immediately saying that he would want to fight for black suffrage.

being screwed over like that twice really pissed off those white supremacists and still does to this day. They still bring up his campaign speeches with anger of how his actions in office completely went against them.

Lincoln was a piece of shit.

He was too weak of a leader to deal with the issues of secession so he reverted to war. He broke the truce at Ft Sumter (without even consulting his Cabinet) and he sent troops to kill American and destroy American homes and cities.

When the casualties got very high he came up with the Emancipation Proclamation to get the Negroes to enroll in the .filthy Union Army to kill more Southerns who just wanted their freedom for an oppressive government.

History is written by the winners. In this case the war was framed in terms of the moral issue of slavery but that was not the facts of 1861. Most of you stupid Moon Bats only have a Jr High History text book knowledge of the Civil War. You are very ignorant on this like you are on most things..

Those useful idiots in the North would have joined the military to "preserve the Union" but they sure as hell weren't going to fight for the Negroes.

Oh trust me. That is definitely what the crow slavery faction thought. Your description of him is not new.

There was no "truce" at fort Sumter. By that point hundreds of federal properties had been overrun and 1/4 of the US military had surrendered. and when Confederates continued taking over federal properties by force if necessary he fought back after they started a war on US land.

You say in 1861 the cause of the secession and war to fight for it wasn't slavery.

Luckily for us the Confederacy documented their reasons. to protect an expand to the institution of race based slavery against the government they fear would take it away.

In 1858 when Lincoln announced his presidency, Jefferson Davis spoke to the Mississippi Senate saying "Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safely outside the Union"

So while you say it wasn't about slavery then, the president of the Confederacy said it was. I think he might know a little more than you. That's what happens when instead of getting your facts from actual source history, you get them from the white supremacist tired lazy debunked lost cause myths.

 

[SandSquid]

You say history is written by the winners.

Let's look at what the losers had to say.

Like General Morgan of the Confederacy "Now, any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."

It's your choice. Fool or liar.

What about the Confederate Secretary of State Robert MT Hunter when asked about freeing slaves to fight for the Confederacy... "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"

What about senator Keitt of SC, the first state to secede of which he was a prominent secessionist... "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding"

Or Isham Harris the governor of the last state to leave, who after putting together a legislative succession on secession, came out of that riding a letter to Lincoln of their demands, with 23 complaints and 7 amendments needing passed to stay in the union. 21 of those complaints and all 7 amendments were related to slavery.

Or governor rector of Arkansas.. "The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South.."

Or the articles of secession from Mississippi, which Begin their declaration of Independence from the United States with "our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery".

But hey yeah let's just destroy history where we see fit for a more PC version.

 

[SandSquid]

Some more from the losing side so we don't have to rely on the winners...

Henry Benning, Georgia politician and general.. "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections.... I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."

Sen Brown of Mississippi "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further."

Rep Goode at the VA secession convention. "Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation---the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery..."

 

[SandSquid]

You're not very smart, are ya?

Despite the nuances involved, the Civil War mainly pertained to states rights. States rights = the right to self determination. This is literally the exact same principle this whole goddamn country was founded upon. We didn't like how GB was telling us to live, so we rebelled. We won. Victors write the history.

On the same token the South, 100 years later, didn't like how the rest of the country was telling them to live. They rebelled. They lost. Again - VICTORS wrote the history. Virtue signal all you'd like, had the South won you'd be singing their praises - so to label them "traitors" is disingenuous at best. We're ALL fucking traitors, we just happened to come out on the winning side.

Remember that before you start denigrating an entire populace.

These Moon Bats are as ignorant of History as they are of Climate Science, Economics, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

The US (i.e. Union) was a slave country before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the Civil War.

The national debate on slavery had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was about political power.

The debate on slavery was about allowing slavery in the western expansion territories. All the great anti slavery speeches given in Congress by the Northern assholes were in the context of expanding in the West.

The fact was that if a new state was allowed to be slave then it would be dominated by Democrats. If non slave it would be dominated by Republicans.

It was all about the balance of political power in the Congress.

The Northern Republicans wanted to have a majority so that they could use the government to steal money from the cash rich Southerners. Just like they tried to do with Tariffs on Southern products in the 1850s.

Same shit that is going on today except the political parties have reversed.

Lincoln said he didn't give a shit about slavery. There are some very famous quotes. His shitty Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free the slaves in the Union. It only applied to "occupied Southern areas" and he even gave exceptions to that like in New Orleans and West Virginia. DC was built on a war footing with slaves. It was only designed to encourage the Neggras to join the filthy Union Army to become cannon fodder.

That is actually a lie. Lincoln said He was strongly opposed to slavery..

You are confused Moon Bat. History is always confusing to Moon Bats just like Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

Like all Republicans at the time he was only concerned about slavery as it pertained to the expansion to the west because that would give the Democrat power. Slavery was only a political tool to him. Most of his anti slavery statements were made in that context.

Emaciation was a military move to get more canon fodder, not freeing US slaves. Emaciation did not free slavery in the US.

Here is what he said about the Negroes and equality

“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”

Here is what he said about freeing the slaves

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Yes Lincoln did not want a war to end slavery. His opinion was that if he stopped it's expansion it would wither and die.

But obviously he wanted to end slavery as he did in Washington DC, West Virginia, throughout the South and then later throughout the entire United States.

He ran his campaign as a moderate saying he didn't want to end slavery, when his actual acts once elected were to end slavery. Then he screwed over the white supremacist a second time in his next election saying he didn't want to give blacks rights. Then in his inaugural speech, stuck it to those white supremacists AGAIN by immediately saying that he would want to fight for black suffrage.

being screwed over like that twice really pissed off those white supremacists and still does to this day. They still bring up his campaign speeches with anger of how his actions in office completely went against them.

Lincoln was a piece of shit.

He was too weak of a leader to deal with the issues of secession so he reverted to war. He broke the truce at Ft Sumter (without even consulting his Cabinet) and he sent troops to kill American and destroy American homes and cities.

When the casualties got very high he came up with the Emancipation Proclamation to get the Negroes to enroll in the .filthy Union Army to kill more Southerns who just wanted their freedom for an oppressive government.

History is written by the winners. In this case the war was framed in terms of the moral issue of slavery but that was not the facts of 1861. Most of you stupid Moon Bats only have a Jr High History text book knowledge of the Civil War. You are very ignorant on this like you are on most things..

Those useful idiots in the North would have joined the military to "preserve the Union" but they sure as hell weren't going to fight for the Negroes.

You see, for well over a century that lost cause myth was allowed to propagate and spread because actual source history was only able to be found archived in certain libraries. But those archives moved online and now everyone is able to easily see the web of lies behind the lost cause that white supremacist had been promoting for decades.

Now what is left is those unwilling to educate themselves. Those that choose to remain intentionally ignorant, ignore context and erase history they don't like.

There are literally hundreds of mentions of slavery just in the minutes from the Georgia secession convention alone.

Oh by the way that convention came out with the recommendation that their new constitution remain similar to the US Constitution with 9 amendments... All nine specifically addressing slavery.

So that's the decision you are left with today. Having been shown evidence, you may continue to maintain the lies propagated by groups like the Klan, dixiecrats, and other white supremacists and be their voice... Or choose to educate yourself using source history. You can no longer hide behind the "winners write the story" because the story of the losers is readily available. And they screamed from the rooftops they wanted to protect and expand slavery.

 

[Pogo]

These Moon Bats are as ignorant of History as they are of Climate Science, Economics, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

The US (i.e. Union) was a slave country before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the Civil War.

The national debate on slavery had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was about political power.

The debate on slavery was about allowing slavery in the western expansion territories. All the great anti slavery speeches given in Congress by the Northern assholes were in the context of expanding in the West.

The fact was that if a new state was allowed to be slave then it would be dominated by Democrats. If non slave it would be dominated by Republicans.

It was all about the balance of political power in the Congress.

The Northern Republicans wanted to have a majority so that they could use the government to steal money from the cash rich Southerners. Just like they tried to do with Tariffs on Southern products in the 1850s.

Same shit that is going on today except the political parties have reversed.

Lincoln said he didn't give a shit about slavery. There are some very famous quotes. His shitty Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free the slaves in the Union. It only applied to "occupied Southern areas" and he even gave exceptions to that like in New Orleans and West Virginia. DC was built on a war footing with slaves. It was only designed to encourage the Neggras to join the filthy Union Army to become cannon fodder.

That is actually a lie. Lincoln said He was strongly opposed to slavery..

You are confused Moon Bat. History is always confusing to Moon Bats just like Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

Like all Republicans at the time he was only concerned about slavery as it pertained to the expansion to the west because that would give the Democrat power. Slavery was only a political tool to him. Most of his anti slavery statements were made in that context.

Emaciation was a military move to get more canon fodder, not freeing US slaves. Emaciation did not free slavery in the US.

Here is what he said about the Negroes and equality

“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”

Here is what he said about freeing the slaves

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Yes Lincoln did not want a war to end slavery. His opinion was that if he stopped it's expansion it would wither and die.

But obviously he wanted to end slavery as he did in Washington DC, West Virginia, throughout the South and then later throughout the entire United States.

He ran his campaign as a moderate saying he didn't want to end slavery, when his actual acts once elected were to end slavery. Then he screwed over the white supremacist a second time in his next election saying he didn't want to give blacks rights. Then in his inaugural speech, stuck it to those white supremacists AGAIN by immediately saying that he would want to fight for black suffrage.

being screwed over like that twice really pissed off those white supremacists and still does to this day. They still bring up his campaign speeches with anger of how his actions in office completely went against them.

Lincoln was a piece of shit.

He was too weak of a leader to deal with the issues of secession so he reverted to war. He broke the truce at Ft Sumter (without even consulting his Cabinet) and he sent troops to kill American and destroy American homes and cities.

When the casualties got very high he came up with the Emancipation Proclamation to get the Negroes to enroll in the .filthy Union Army to kill more Southerns who just wanted their freedom for an oppressive government.

History is written by the winners. In this case the war was framed in terms of the moral issue of slavery but that was not the facts of 1861. Most of you stupid Moon Bats only have a Jr High History text book knowledge of the Civil War. You are very ignorant on this like you are on most things..

Those useful idiots in the North would have joined the military to "preserve the Union" but they sure as hell weren't going to fight for the Negroes.

Oh trust me. That is definitely what the crow slavery faction thought. Your description of him is not new.

There was no "truce" at fort Sumter. By that point hundreds of federal properties had been overrun and 1/4 of the US military had surrendered. and when Confederates continued taking over federal properties by force if necessary he fought back after they started a war on US land.

You say in 1861 the cause of the secession and war to fight for it wasn't slavery.

Luckily for us the Confederacy documented their reasons. to protect an expand to the institution of race based slavery against the government they fear would take it away.

In 1858 when Lincoln announced his presidency, Jefferson Davis spoke to the Mississippi Senate saying "Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safely outside the Union"

So while you say it wasn't about slavery then, the president of the Confederacy said it was. I think he might know a little more than you. That's what happens when instead of getting your facts from actual source history, you get them from the white supremacist tired lazy debunked lost cause myths.

Indeed. And the CSA's eventual Vice-President declared the same thing:

>> The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] << --- Alexander Stephens on Slavery and the Confederate Constitution (1861)
​

So did the declarations of the several seceding states, example:

>> “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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. << Mississippi Articles of Secession, 1861

​

Once the reality of what had occurred (and why) set in, enter the Edward Pollards and the Thomas Dixons and the UDCs to sanitize and spin and whisk away the stains of dishonor by literally rewriting history (the UDC spent far more energy literally rewriting school textbooks than they did erecting statues).

And then we get the knuckledragger element on the one hand trying to stand up for this revisionist propaganda malarkey and on the other hand simultaneously insisting they were "democrats [sic]". Clearly a confuserated bunch.

That's what happens when one fuels on bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

Statue sold for $1.4 million. Why are we removing the in the first place because they owned slaves and that makes it racist today. What’s next all our money? George Washington owned 30 himself is he know a piece of shit? The Left gets offended by EVERYTHING in the past because they’re personally so inadequate in the present. ‘Robert E. Lee & The Confederate Soldier’ Sculpture Removed From Dallas Park Sells For $1.4M

He was a traitor big difference. And if you gonna say he was part of history, some might ask for a Hitler statue...you know those people that vote for trump and he called them fine people?

You do know your fellow Lefty's has a statue of Lenin in Seattle right?



View attachment 264209






Idiot.


.

And a statue of Lenin in Los Angeles


View attachment 264210

One of my favorite Beatles

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ummm, again, why wouldn’t whites in a white nation be “supreme”?

Texas explained it all.

The Texas Ordinance of Secession
(February 2, 1861)

.....

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Texas Ordinance of Secession

Again, I apologize on behalf of my beloved State for her racist past.

Join Texans in celebrating Juneteenth.

.

 

[Toronado3800]

Statue sold for $1.4 million. Why are we removing the in the first place because they owned slaves and that makes it racist today. What’s next all our money? George Washington owned 30 himself is he know a piece of shit? The Left gets offended by EVERYTHING in the past because they’re personally so inadequate in the present. ‘Robert E. Lee & The Confederate Soldier’ Sculpture Removed From Dallas Park Sells For $1.4M

I've never seen someone who fought against America soo revered as Robert E Lee.

I'll meet you someplace where we need to at least partially judge people by their time and place of birth though.

Your smear against "the left" probably forces "them" to dig their heels in.

FWIW, I'd leave every Confederate flag and monument in its place. So we don't forget history I'd put larger statues of Harriet Tubman or statues of slaves being brutalized and sold off around them until folks vomited at the site of the Stars and Bars of slavery.

Then I'd erect plaques with every racist slang term we could find and writings from people using them just to remind all the Irish, Catholics, Germans, whoever that they were going to be the end of America when their types showed up.

These Confederate monuments do not need torn down I agree. Just repurposed to something you and I obviously agree on. Unless you're somehow pro-slavery or anti-american.

 

[Montrovant]

With all the talk I've seen on USMB about how the public education system is terrible, I find it funny that so many posters seem to think that people are learning their history from statues at government buildings. What, do you think that kids aren't given any lessons in US history, specifically the Civil War, in school? Do you think the kids are instead going to their local courthouses and looking at the statues at those locations in order to learn about history?

Moving a statue is erasing history.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The same goes for you.

Respect breeds respect.

You want it? Give it.

.

Respect for those who support white supremacy is impossible.

Why? White supremacy built this nation into the place that you and all your degenerate friends want to freeload in?
This is a white nation where whites are supreme...have you ever looked at statistics?
We were founded by whites, we’re funded and run by whites...how do you think we got to where we’re at? Scary shit to acknowledge huh?
Are the Japanese “supreme” in Japan?

White supremacy is the belief that the white race is superior to all others, dope.

Ummm, again, why wouldn’t whites in a white nation be “supreme”?
The Japanese are “supreme” in Japan...as they should be...no?

su·preme
/so͞oˈprēm/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.
   "a unified force with a supreme commander"
   synonyms: highest ranking, highest, leading, chief, head, top, foremost, principal, superior, premier, first, cardinal, prime, sovereign;
   directing, governing;
   greatest, dominant, predominant, preeminent, overriding, prevailing
   "the supreme commander of NATO forces"

That's not what white supremecy means, dope.

You’re confusing me...so you’re mad that people have the courage to acknowledge facts / statistics as they relate to ethnicity?

 

[rightwinger]

Those Union shitheads fought a war for bitches like this

and so that bitches like this can get their free Obamaphone

Trump phones now

 

[rightwinger]

With all the talk I've seen on USMB about how the public education system is terrible, I find it funny that so many posters seem to think that people are learning their history from statues at government buildings. What, do you think that kids aren't given any lessons in US history, specifically the Civil War, in school? Do you think the kids are instead going to their local courthouses and looking at the statues at those locations in order to learn about history?

Moving a statue is erasing history.

Still in all the books

You just don’t have to walk by it every day

 

[basquebromance]

Robert E Lee was not so great as much as the union army was weak. McLellan couldn't make one good decision so Abe Lincoln replaced him...he replaced a lot of generals until he got it right

 

[rightwinger]

With all the talk I've seen on USMB about how the public education system is terrible, I find it funny that so many posters seem to think that people are learning their history from statues at government buildings. What, do you think that kids aren't given any lessons in US history, specifically the Civil War, in school? Do you think the kids are instead going to their local courthouses and looking at the statues at those locations in order to learn about history?

Moving a statue is erasing history.

Do we want kids to learn lost cause?

 

[BrokeLoser]

The same goes for you.

Respect breeds respect.

You want it? Give it.

.

Respect for those who support white supremacy is impossible.

Why? White supremacy built this nation into the place that you and all your degenerate friends want to freeload in?
This is a white nation where whites are supreme...have you ever looked at statistics?
We were founded by whites, we’re funded and run by whites...how do you think we got to where we’re at? Scary shit to acknowledge huh?
Are the Japanese “supreme” in Japan?

White supremacy is the belief that the white race is superior to all others, dope.

Ummm, again, why wouldn’t whites in a white nation be “supreme”?
The Japanese are “supreme” in Japan...as they should be...no?

su·preme
/so͞oˈprēm/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.
   "a unified force with a supreme commander"
   synonyms: highest ranking, highest, leading, chief, head, top, foremost, principal, superior, premier, first, cardinal, prime, sovereign;
   directing, governing;
   greatest, dominant, predominant, preeminent, overriding, prevailing
   "the supreme commander of NATO forces"

Do you understand that Japanese is a nationality, not a race? You would need to use Americans rather than whites for a direct comparison: The Americans are supreme in America, as the Japanese are supreme in Japan.

The Japanese are very tough to sort out...distinguishing the race from the nationality is a challenge there...but that doesn’t change the point I made nor are you confused by it. We both know that.

 

[basquebromance]

DEMOCRATS fought for the confederates and REPUBLICANS fought for the union.

learn history, people!

 

[Lesh]

DEMOCRATS fought for the confederates and REPUBLICANS fought for the union.

learn history, people!

And nothing has changed in 150 years?

Oh yea it has. The Parties have flip flopped

 

[Truth1253]

Statue sold for $1.4 million. Why are we removing the in the first place because they owned slaves and that makes it racist today. What’s next all our money? George Washington owned 30 himself is he know a piece of shit? The Left gets offended by EVERYTHING in the past because they’re personally so inadequate in the present.

Um, not, it's being removed because he betrayed the country over slavery.

Time to stop honoring traitors. Take them all down.

Just like the Taliban, destroying art, trying to erase history. History haunts them, even if they try to mangle the history books.
History is history, the truth is the truth, deal with it.

Yes, history is history.

And there was nothing noble or honorable about Lee, which is why he should be expunged from any place of honor. .

You're not very smart, are ya?

Despite the nuances involved, the Civil War mainly pertained to states rights. States rights = the right to self determination. This is literally the exact same principle this whole goddamn country was founded upon. We didn't like how GB was telling us to live, so we rebelled. We won. Victors write the history.

On the same token the South, 100 years later, didn't like how the rest of the country was telling them to live. They rebelled. They lost. Again - VICTORS wrote the history. Virtue signal all you'd like, had the South won you'd be singing their praises - so to label them "traitors" is disingenuous at best. We're ALL fucking traitors, we just happened to come out on the winning side.

Remember that before you start denigrating an entire populace.

These Moon Bats are as ignorant of History as they are of Climate Science, Economics, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

The US (i.e. Union) was a slave country before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the Civil War.

The national debate on slavery had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was about political power.

The debate on slavery was about allowing slavery in the western expansion territories. All the great anti slavery speeches given in Congress by the Northern assholes were in the context of expanding in the West.

The fact was that if a new state was allowed to be slave then it would be dominated by Democrats. If non slave it would be dominated by Republicans.

It was all about the balance of political power in the Congress.

The Northern Republicans wanted to have a majority so that they could use the government to steal money from the cash rich Southerners. Just like they tried to do with Tariffs on Southern products in the 1850s.

Same shit that is going on today except the political parties have reversed.

Lincoln said he didn't give a shit about slavery. There are some very famous quotes. His shitty Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free the slaves in the Union. It only applied to "occupied Southern areas" and he even gave exceptions to that like in New Orleans and West Virginia. DC was built on a war footing with slaves. It was only designed to encourage the Neggras to join the filthy Union Army to become cannon fodder.

The South realized it’s slave culture was dying
New states were not going to side with their despicable practice of slavery.
It was going to mean that they no longer had the political influence to force pro slavery policy in Washington

So they started there own country which would preserve slavery forever

The confederacy was the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany

Is that what public school taught you?

 

[Truth1253]

Statue sold for $1.4 million. Why are we removing the in the first place because they owned slaves and that makes it racist today. What’s next all our money? George Washington owned 30 himself is he know a piece of shit? The Left gets offended by EVERYTHING in the past because they’re personally so inadequate in the present. ‘Robert E. Lee & The Confederate Soldier’ Sculpture Removed From Dallas Park Sells For $1.4M

He was a traitor big difference. And if you gonna say he was part of history, some might ask for a Hitler statue...you know those people that vote for trump and he called them fine people?

You do know your fellow Lefty's has a statue of Lenin in Seattle right?



View attachment 264209






Idiot.


.

Seattle these days is one big toilet. Needle canisters in every public bathroom. Liberalism at it worst and these scumbags spread like locusts.

(watch this)

When's the last time you were there?

The other day

 

[Truth1253]

Great man killed many Yankees View attachment 264184

Killed a great many Rebels too.

Tell me more.