Robert E Lee & The Confederate Solider statue removed in Dallas

[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.

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?

Yup

Where did you learn alternative history

 

[Truth1253]

You know Joe B..... Believe it or not I am not a war monger. At some point the apologies have to stop. Most of the modern nations in the world were/are war mongers for their benefit. You live good off it. So leave or live a sparse existence. China is not going to play games when they see their chance. The past can not be changed. To learn from it is to not forget it. But we are removing our history because people do not like parts of it. So we will repeat it easily at some point.

We aren't removing our history... we are just putting it in the proper context.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for a noble cause, they were fighting so a few rich people could keep owning other people. This is nothing to be proud of, we should be profoundly ashamed of it.

Erasing it would be what Japan does with World War II. Your average Japanese really doesn't know a lot about what their country did during that war.

The proper context is... this was wrong, it was bad... and the guys who fought for it shouldn't be honored.

Sorry JoeB131 I disagree. I find it dangerous to assume
one side can dictate how to interpret history. If a group of
people create a statue or a park, let them keep it. Treat
it like religious freedom, where each group can have its
own places of worship. To decide whose leaders or
take on history is right or wrong is dangerous to take
"one side over another" to justify destroying or removing sites.

Like the groups suing to remove a Cross from a memorial.
Let private groups buy the site and preserve it if they wish.

Trying to destroy the history of another group risks becoming
as dictatorial, tyrannical and destructive as the group
BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT so this is self-defeating.

Just reactionary, but flipping to the other extreme.
Instead of both sides taking turns destroying the history
and heritage of the other, why not preserve both and let
each invest in developing their own sites instead of destroying both!

Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.

That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.

Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.

Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.

Want an example?

Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:

.

That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.

That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.

The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".

The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population. However that monument was not "destroyed". It's in storage somewhere looking for a museum last I heard.


Here's another:

That plaque was placed on the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, by the same group that put up the vast majority of these revisionist history "Lost Cause" monuments, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), at the same time they were doing it (in this case 1917). This is part of the same mythology, that the Klan were nice guys deserving of "honor" and weren't getting their due in another piece of that revisionist history, the "Birth of a Nation" film, which was in turn based on yet another piece of Lost Cause revisionism, the novel "The Clansman".

Today that plaque is turned backward so its blank side faces the street.

--- it was not "destroyed", just turned backward by the new owner of the building, who declared it the town's way of "turning its back on" the Klan. You know who objected to that turning backward? The KKK, who meet there to "commemorate" their origins. Nobody else.

​

​

I was born and raised in New Orleans and I can tell you since it’s democrat run it’s one of the most violent cities in America sure glad they got rid of those statues that nobody even knew about and made things better for the city. I wonder when they’re going to start worrying about black on black murders every day?

 

[Truth1253]

You know Joe B..... Believe it or not I am not a war monger. At some point the apologies have to stop. Most of the modern nations in the world were/are war mongers for their benefit. You live good off it. So leave or live a sparse existence. China is not going to play games when they see their chance. The past can not be changed. To learn from it is to not forget it. But we are removing our history because people do not like parts of it. So we will repeat it easily at some point.

We aren't removing our history... we are just putting it in the proper context.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for a noble cause, they were fighting so a few rich people could keep owning other people. This is nothing to be proud of, we should be profoundly ashamed of it.

Erasing it would be what Japan does with World War II. Your average Japanese really doesn't know a lot about what their country did during that war.

The proper context is... this was wrong, it was bad... and the guys who fought for it shouldn't be honored.

Sorry JoeB131 I disagree. I find it dangerous to assume
one side can dictate how to interpret history. If a group of
people create a statue or a park, let them keep it. Treat
it like religious freedom, where each group can have its
own places of worship. To decide whose leaders or
take on history is right or wrong is dangerous to take
"one side over another" to justify destroying or removing sites.

Like the groups suing to remove a Cross from a memorial.
Let private groups buy the site and preserve it if they wish.

Trying to destroy the history of another group risks becoming
as dictatorial, tyrannical and destructive as the group
BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT so this is self-defeating.

Just reactionary, but flipping to the other extreme.
Instead of both sides taking turns destroying the history
and heritage of the other, why not preserve both and let
each invest in developing their own sites instead of destroying both!

Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.

That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.

Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.

Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.

Want an example?

Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:

.

That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.

That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.

The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".

The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population.

For a quarter century before Katrina, African Americans controlled New Orleans. Lot of money for levees and other work to reduce the chances of what happened Billions of dollars never went to where the should. You have white corrupted azzholes. Its just that we are nit allowed to call African Americans corrupted azzholes. They kill more person per person then anyone. The statues are coming for their successes. Oh yes in deedee. The bottom line is to survive the worst. Trust in people can get you killed.

The black Democrat politicians steal everything they can get their hands on in New Orleans. I would say the levee board is also one of the most corrupt organizations in America.

 

[Lesh]

I visited NO last November.

Felt safer there than NYC

 

[Pogo]

You know Joe B..... Believe it or not I am not a war monger. At some point the apologies have to stop. Most of the modern nations in the world were/are war mongers for their benefit. You live good off it. So leave or live a sparse existence. China is not going to play games when they see their chance. The past can not be changed. To learn from it is to not forget it. But we are removing our history because people do not like parts of it. So we will repeat it easily at some point.

We aren't removing our history... we are just putting it in the proper context.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for a noble cause, they were fighting so a few rich people could keep owning other people. This is nothing to be proud of, we should be profoundly ashamed of it.

Erasing it would be what Japan does with World War II. Your average Japanese really doesn't know a lot about what their country did during that war.

The proper context is... this was wrong, it was bad... and the guys who fought for it shouldn't be honored.

Sorry JoeB131 I disagree. I find it dangerous to assume
one side can dictate how to interpret history. If a group of
people create a statue or a park, let them keep it. Treat
it like religious freedom, where each group can have its
own places of worship. To decide whose leaders or
take on history is right or wrong is dangerous to take
"one side over another" to justify destroying or removing sites.

Like the groups suing to remove a Cross from a memorial.
Let private groups buy the site and preserve it if they wish.

Trying to destroy the history of another group risks becoming
as dictatorial, tyrannical and destructive as the group
BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT so this is self-defeating.

Just reactionary, but flipping to the other extreme.
Instead of both sides taking turns destroying the history
and heritage of the other, why not preserve both and let
each invest in developing their own sites instead of destroying both!

Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.

That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.

Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.

Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.

Want an example?

Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:

.

That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.

That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.

The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".

The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population. However that monument was not "destroyed". It's in storage somewhere looking for a museum last I heard.


Here's another:

That plaque was placed on the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, by the same group that put up the vast majority of these revisionist history "Lost Cause" monuments, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), at the same time they were doing it (in this case 1917). This is part of the same mythology, that the Klan were nice guys deserving of "honor" and weren't getting their due in another piece of that revisionist history, the "Birth of a Nation" film, which was in turn based on yet another piece of Lost Cause revisionism, the novel "The Clansman".

Today that plaque is turned backward so its blank side faces the street.

--- it was not "destroyed", just turned backward by the new owner of the building, who declared it the town's way of "turning its back on" the Klan. You know who objected to that turning backward? The KKK, who meet there to "commemorate" their origins. Nobody else.

​

​

I was born and raised in New Orleans and I can tell you since it’s democrat run it’s one of the most violent cities in America sure glad they got rid of those statues that nobody even knew about and made things better for the city. I wonder when they’re going to start worrying about black on black murders every day?

"Nobody ever knew about" riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, nobody ever drove by the intersection of City Park and Esplanade, where the Art Museum is. Nobody goes there. Never any traffic at that light. Eight lanes of nothing.

"Nobody ever knew about" Lee Circle, where the streetcar curves around to continue down to the CBD. "Nobody ever knew about" that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street, which makes it odd that David Duke knew to sue the city to put it back there.

Fuckin' idiot.

 

[Truth1253]

You know Joe B..... Believe it or not I am not a war monger. At some point the apologies have to stop. Most of the modern nations in the world were/are war mongers for their benefit. You live good off it. So leave or live a sparse existence. China is not going to play games when they see their chance. The past can not be changed. To learn from it is to not forget it. But we are removing our history because people do not like parts of it. So we will repeat it easily at some point.

We aren't removing our history... we are just putting it in the proper context.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for a noble cause, they were fighting so a few rich people could keep owning other people. This is nothing to be proud of, we should be profoundly ashamed of it.

Erasing it would be what Japan does with World War II. Your average Japanese really doesn't know a lot about what their country did during that war.

The proper context is... this was wrong, it was bad... and the guys who fought for it shouldn't be honored.

Sorry JoeB131 I disagree. I find it dangerous to assume
one side can dictate how to interpret history. If a group of
people create a statue or a park, let them keep it. Treat
it like religious freedom, where each group can have its
own places of worship. To decide whose leaders or
take on history is right or wrong is dangerous to take
"one side over another" to justify destroying or removing sites.

Like the groups suing to remove a Cross from a memorial.
Let private groups buy the site and preserve it if they wish.

Trying to destroy the history of another group risks becoming
as dictatorial, tyrannical and destructive as the group
BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT so this is self-defeating.

Just reactionary, but flipping to the other extreme.
Instead of both sides taking turns destroying the history
and heritage of the other, why not preserve both and let
each invest in developing their own sites instead of destroying both!

Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.

That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.

Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.

Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.

Want an example?

Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:

.

That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.

That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.

The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".

The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population.

For a quarter century before Katrina, African Americans controlled New Orleans. Lot of money for levees and other work to reduce the chances of what happened Billions of dollars never went to where the should. You have white corrupted azzholes. Its just that we are nit allowed to call African Americans corrupted azzholes. They kill more person per person then anyone. The statues are coming for their successes. Oh yes in deedee. The bottom line is to survive the worst. Trust in people can get you killed.

This post is fucking hilarious, considering I lived in New Orleans before and during Katrina and you didn't.

Also quite the loose definition of the word "billions"".

Actually it was the Army Corps of Engineers found to be at fault for the broken levees, that was established in court years ago.

As for the statues, check the OP, which is about DALLAS, Check the Tiki Torch riots which were in VIRGINIA. Check any number of places removing statues/monuments in Tennessee, North Carolina, Minnesota, Montana, none of which are in "New Orleans". No sugartits, the statues came down as a result of this:

Which is also not "New Orleans". That begat a re-assessment of the whole Lost Cause Bullshit, which brought Nikki Haley out to take that flag off her statehouse in SOUTH CAROLINA. And that begat rethinking the allowance of Lost Cause propaganda transmitters on public property all over the country where the UDC had put them.

Geography is clearly not your forté.

I was born and raised in New Orleans all my life asshole what are you talking about there’s so much corruption in New Orleans and the levee board is the most corrupt in America guaranteed. I had a move to the north shore over here just to get away from all the crime and New Orleans has spread to Metairie and now you see all the crime in Metairie. Unfortunately whites build up and blacks destroy where ever the go. Section 8 is a city killer. And if you can’t admit that you just lie to yourself.

 

[Rustic]

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. .

Lol
Political correctness has made you retarded… I guess it’s best you stay in your mothers basement

 

[Pogo]

We aren't removing our history... we are just putting it in the proper context.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for a noble cause, they were fighting so a few rich people could keep owning other people. This is nothing to be proud of, we should be profoundly ashamed of it.

Erasing it would be what Japan does with World War II. Your average Japanese really doesn't know a lot about what their country did during that war.

The proper context is... this was wrong, it was bad... and the guys who fought for it shouldn't be honored.

Sorry JoeB131 I disagree. I find it dangerous to assume
one side can dictate how to interpret history. If a group of
people create a statue or a park, let them keep it. Treat
it like religious freedom, where each group can have its
own places of worship. To decide whose leaders or
take on history is right or wrong is dangerous to take
"one side over another" to justify destroying or removing sites.

Like the groups suing to remove a Cross from a memorial.
Let private groups buy the site and preserve it if they wish.

Trying to destroy the history of another group risks becoming
as dictatorial, tyrannical and destructive as the group
BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT so this is self-defeating.

Just reactionary, but flipping to the other extreme.
Instead of both sides taking turns destroying the history
and heritage of the other, why not preserve both and let
each invest in developing their own sites instead of destroying both!

Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.

That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.

Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.

Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.

Want an example?

Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:

.

That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.

That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.

The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".

The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population.

For a quarter century before Katrina, African Americans controlled New Orleans. Lot of money for levees and other work to reduce the chances of what happened Billions of dollars never went to where the should. You have white corrupted azzholes. Its just that we are nit allowed to call African Americans corrupted azzholes. They kill more person per person then anyone. The statues are coming for their successes. Oh yes in deedee. The bottom line is to survive the worst. Trust in people can get you killed.

This post is fucking hilarious, considering I lived in New Orleans before and during Katrina and you didn't.

Also quite the loose definition of the word "billions"".

Actually it was the Army Corps of Engineers found to be at fault for the broken levees, that was established in court years ago.

As for the statues, check the OP, which is about DALLAS, Check the Tiki Torch riots which were in VIRGINIA. Check any number of places removing statues/monuments in Tennessee, North Carolina, Minnesota, Montana, none of which are in "New Orleans". No sugartits, the statues came down as a result of this:

Which is also not "New Orleans". That begat a re-assessment of the whole Lost Cause Bullshit, which brought Nikki Haley out to take that flag off her statehouse in SOUTH CAROLINA. And that begat rethinking the allowance of Lost Cause propaganda transmitters on public property all over the country where the UDC had put them.

Geography is clearly not your forté.

I was born and raised in New Orleans all my life asshole what are you talking about there’s so much corruption in New Orleans and the levee board is the most corrupt in America guaranteed. I had a move to the north shore over here just to get away from all the crime and New Orleans has spread to Metairie and now you see all the crime in Metairie. Unfortunately whites build up and blacks destroy where ever the go. Section 8 is a city killer. And if you can’t admit that you just lie to yourself.

Oh no, tell us more about how 'nobody knows about' Lee Circle and City Park Ave and Canal Street.

What else does 'nobody know about', Dumbass?

Oh and while you're at it essplain to the class how you run a city by "democrats", and how deciding what day Prytania Street gets it trash picked up has jack-shit to do with political parties. Then you can tell us why the Republicans who run Metairie are "seeing all the crime". Dumbass.

 

[Rustic]

Five myths about Robert E. Lee

Common sense is lost on the progressive

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

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

You're confused because you're dumb.
I'm not mad at all.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Those Union shitheads fought a war for bitches like this

and so that bitches like this can get their free Obamaphone

Ewe do know those phones were actually started by another one of your right wing gods Raygun don't ewe? Of course ewe don't.

 

[basquebromance]

"Robert E. Lee has been re-invented as a white genocidal lunatic. Meanwhile, actual tape-recorded evidence of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. engaging in sex orgies will not put a dent in his hero status.

on the contrary, Lee was a master strategist who was physically fearless.

Here's an interesting fact about Lee: After graduating second in his class at West Point, he spent several decades overseeing the construction of fortifications on our borders. He rose to fame during the war with -- GUESS WHO? -- Mexico! Wasn't it great when our military defended our country?

If any confederate cavalryman had behaved like King, Lee would have had him shot. American folk tale version-cum-Revealed Truth: Lee is Hitler. King is a saint.

In our new objectivity-free country, it was an act of indisputable racism for Trump to question whether President Obama was born in America.

Even Trump's loyal little defender, presidential adviser Jared Kushner, refused to deny in an interview this week that Trump's "birtherism" was racist. (No wonder his father-in-law thinks he's a girl.)"
June 5, 2019 - THE WHOLE FOLK TALE AND NOTHING BUT THE FOLK TALE

 

[emilynghiem]

Because they stand as a lesson to future generations as a reminder of the Democrats' untoward history of oppression and barbarism, which they seek to repeat on a wider scale by placing all Americans in slavery to The State.

I think your doctor needs to adjust your medication, buddy.

1. He fought for his state. The "country" was a "Union of States". The US was much more localized back in 1860. They fought for States' Rights, not just slavery. Slavery was the norm back then, they didn't know what political correctness was. Cheap manual labor was necessary to succeed in farming. There was no real farm machinery. Your idealistic view of the 1860 world is laughable.

The only "State Right" they were fighting over was slavery... You can't start a country on the premise of "All Men are Created Equal" and then have people owning other people.

2. Show me after his dad died when he was 11 where he owned a plantation. They were essentially beggars living with family.

The point is, he was living with other well-off relatives who had the influence to get him into West Point. He wasn't out there with a cardboard sign that read, "Will Betray my Country for Food".

3. Who is ashamed of annexing Texas? Not most of us.

You mean other than we invaded another country, tried to impose our laws on it, and started a war with them when they didn't.

So by your logic, now that the Southwest is being overrun with Mexicans, they can impose their laws on us now, right?

4. If you were drafted to fight in VN what would you do? The power of the "state" has demands.

Hard to say... I know as a young man, I joined the Army and I was in for 11 years as active duty and reserves... but now I really am very cynical about how we use our military. Vietnam was before my time, though.

I'd be all for a draft, as long as we put the children of the rich and politicians in an elite airborne unit that is the first deployed to any war zone.

Yes and No JoeB131
If you look at the PERCENTAGES of people who actually owned slaves,
this isn't proportional to the severity and escalation of the war.
Sure it was about economics and slavery was depended on.

It was more symbolic and on PRINCIPLE -- SIMILAR to the
political escalation over "freedom of choice" that is LESS
about abortion and MORE about GOVT intervening intrusively.

The political escalation over "Gun Rights" is ALSO
the PRINCIPLE of Political Rights that threatens people so much.

If it was about the gun violence and abuse of weapons,
the focus would be on MENTAL and CRIMINAL ILLNESS.

If the Prochoice issue was really about abortion, then
people would rally around preventing abortion.

The common dynamic in these cases is people
defending Political RIGHTS from Govt takeover,
REGARDLESS WHAT THE ISSUE IS THAT STARTED IT.

You "cross that line" with people.
You threaten what is SACRED to them as the SYMBOL
of People having authority of govt,
and they will GO BALLISTIC.

It's NEVER "just about" abortion.
It's NEVER "just about" the guns.
It's NEVER "just about slavery" or whatever
you want to use to "fill in the blank."

People DO NOT WANT some other political agenda
or party side getting control of Govt and abusing THAT
to TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

THAT ESCALATES EVERY TIME.
That's what makes people "fight to the death."

 

[Truth1253]

Sorry JoeB131 I disagree. I find it dangerous to assume
one side can dictate how to interpret history. If a group of
people create a statue or a park, let them keep it. Treat
it like religious freedom, where each group can have its
own places of worship. To decide whose leaders or
take on history is right or wrong is dangerous to take
"one side over another" to justify destroying or removing sites.

Like the groups suing to remove a Cross from a memorial.
Let private groups buy the site and preserve it if they wish.

Trying to destroy the history of another group risks becoming
as dictatorial, tyrannical and destructive as the group
BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT so this is self-defeating.

Just reactionary, but flipping to the other extreme.
Instead of both sides taking turns destroying the history
and heritage of the other, why not preserve both and let
each invest in developing their own sites instead of destroying both!

Nothing's being "destroyed" Emily. What's been going on is municipalities and states taking back their own land, and saying no it's not OK to use public land for PROPAGANDA.

That's what this is about --- Propaganda, not "history". History (real history) lives in books, not in statues. Statues are for embellishment (at best), propaganda at worst.

Nobody's "destroying" said propaganda --- they're MOVING it off PUBLIC LAND.

Which is their right to do. It's impossible to make the case that public land must be forced to retain something it doesn't want.

Want an example?

Here's the original location of the "Battle of Liberty Place" monument in New Orleans:

.

That is Canal Street, the foot thereof near the Mississippi River, literally the busiest and most visible spot in the city. Notice the streetcar making its turnabout around it, making the obelisk the centerpiece. Anyone on that streetcar gets a 360 view whether they want it or not.

That was the first monument the city removed a few years ago. It was first moved from this spot above to a less visible spot in the French Quarter in the 1980s. David Duke sued the city to try to get it back.

The "Battle of Liberty Place" was a coup d'êtat staged by white supremacists to overthrow a duly elected biracial city government which, in the words of the marker, "gave us our state". And that marker was put on display for all to see, LITERALLY all to see, in the most prominent location the city has, to declare "whites are in charge here".

The city decided thanks but no thanks, and moved that thing out of its place of prominence, because it finds that message incongruent with its image, and needless to say, it's population.

For a quarter century before Katrina, African Americans controlled New Orleans. Lot of money for levees and other work to reduce the chances of what happened Billions of dollars never went to where the should. You have white corrupted azzholes. Its just that we are nit allowed to call African Americans corrupted azzholes. They kill more person per person then anyone. The statues are coming for their successes. Oh yes in deedee. The bottom line is to survive the worst. Trust in people can get you killed.

This post is fucking hilarious, considering I lived in New Orleans before and during Katrina and you didn't.

Also quite the loose definition of the word "billions"".

Actually it was the Army Corps of Engineers found to be at fault for the broken levees, that was established in court years ago.

As for the statues, check the OP, which is about DALLAS, Check the Tiki Torch riots which were in VIRGINIA. Check any number of places removing statues/monuments in Tennessee, North Carolina, Minnesota, Montana, none of which are in "New Orleans". No sugartits, the statues came down as a result of this:

Which is also not "New Orleans". That begat a re-assessment of the whole Lost Cause Bullshit, which brought Nikki Haley out to take that flag off her statehouse in SOUTH CAROLINA. And that begat rethinking the allowance of Lost Cause propaganda transmitters on public property all over the country where the UDC had put them.

Geography is clearly not your forté.

I was born and raised in New Orleans all my life asshole what are you talking about there’s so much corruption in New Orleans and the levee board is the most corrupt in America guaranteed. I had a move to the north shore over here just to get away from all the crime and New Orleans has spread to Metairie and now you see all the crime in Metairie. Unfortunately whites build up and blacks destroy where ever the go. Section 8 is a city killer. And if you can’t admit that you just lie to yourself.

Oh no, tell us more about how 'nobody knows about' Lee Circle and City Park Ave and Canal Street.

What else does 'nobody know about', Dumbass?

Oh and while you're at it essplain to the class how you run a city by "democrats", and how deciding what day Prytania Street gets it trash picked up has jack-shit to do with political parties. Then you can tell us why the Republicans who run Metairie are "seeing all the crime". Dumbass.

Because after Katrina they where trying to block Section 8 and lost just like Chalmette. Then came the crime you figure it out you beta pussy.

 

[Truth1253]

It’s impossible to educate these fucking leftist pussies. If you don’t love the greatest country on earth you’re a pathetic human being that wouldn’t make it in any other country. You beta weak pussies worry out the past because you have no future.

 

[B. Kidd]

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

The Civil War never happened!

I'll take another, please.....

 

[hunarcy]

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

Time to stop honoring traitors. Take them all down.

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?

Yup

Where did you learn alternative history

Hey, you didn't provide links to prove that Republicans are fighting for flying the Confederate flag on Government land again today...Could it be you just made up that claim?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It’s impossible to educate these fucking leftist pussies. If you don’t love the greatest country on earth you’re a pathetic human being that wouldn’t make it in any other country. You beta weak pussies worry out the past because you have no future.

LOL...nice projection.
It's you who is looking back and lamenting the loss of your power. It's you who feels uncertainty in your future. It's you who is powerless over these changes.
It's you that will have problems adapting.
It's you who is gnashing,crying and lashing out.

You reek of fear and defeat.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Yup

Where did you learn alternative history

Hey, you didn't provide links to prove that Republicans are fighting for flying the Confederate flag on Government land again today...Could it be you just made up that claim?

Didn’t say today

 

[JoeB131]

seems you're pushing around some details to lie. how...you.

the graveyard as i'm understanding it was a FU but it was to keep them from trying to get the land back that the gov took w/o due process. their initial bid of $26k was around $5k short of fair value. later the gov lost their court case and had to pay $150k.

"He was. Both sides agreed on a price of $150,000, the property's fair market value. Congress quickly appropriated the funds. Lee signed papers conveying the title on March 31, 1883, which placed federal ownership of Arlington beyond dispute. The man who formally accepted title to the property for the government was none other than Robert Todd Lincoln, secretary of war and son of the president so often bedeviled by Custis Lee's father. If the sons of such adversaries could bury past arguments, perhaps there was hope for national reunion.

or is the smithsonian lying about it, and several other sites i read this am?

your desire to get your own FUCK YOUs in leads you to say some really ignorant shit.

You are going into details to avoid the obvious. The government took Lee's land and then used it to bury union dead.

That they paid Custis Lee later is besides the point.

Ideal world, we'd have hung Lee from a tree as a traitor and his son would have to change his name out of eternal fucking shame.

Taking his shit to honor the guys who fought for the right side was a fuck you, but a mild one.

Time to give a much bigger Fuck You to the racist traitors. Tear down every statue and villify them in the history books.