Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Correll]

Yes, Confederate Democrats were traitors. However, back in 1872 Congress passed the Amnesty Act, which reversed most of the penalties imposed on former Confederates, and pardoned most of Confederate troops, all in order to stabilize the country.

And now, you lefties are trying to destroy history of the South, which is your history, because it doesn't really portray Democrat party that is pretending to be today.

Back then the Democrats were the southern conservatives and the Republicans were the northern liberals. Today it’s the Democrats who are the southern conservatives. And we know what that means.

Lying as always deantard?

From the days of Andrew Jackson who founded the shameful democrats unto today, democrats have promoted a centralized and powerful government, have been racist, first against the Indians, then against blacks, now against whites, and have infringed the liberty of others.

democrats are as stupid as the retarded twin when confronted by his mother: "Billy, you raped your sister last year" to which Billy says "Nuhn Uhn, I was Bobby then and Bobby was Billy so I'm innocent and Bobby is guilty."

You're a fucking retard, a liar, and a scumbag; which are your virtues...

Oh good. Pothead is here. The Minister of Mendacity. I figured it out from all the posts written to invisible Ignorami.

Guess what Pothead, speaking of liars, you're wrong on this too. Andrew Jackson didn't found the Democratic Party. He was in fact the last elected POTUS to attain the WH without a party. The founder of the DP, that would be one Martin van Buren.

I see you've been schooled on your "Lee never owned a slave in his life" so that'll do for now.

Cheers.

/offtopic

Lee lost, and surrendered and then became post war, a symbol of reconciliation between the North and South.

I agree with that. As I already noted repeatedly, Lee did *NOT* approve of statues and monuments. As I've said in the past, those who use Robert E. Lee for their own self-serving purposes by putting propaganda in the mouth of a deceased man who can't speak for himself, DIShonor his wishes by doing that, and those statues should be accompanied by a plaque reading "General Lee specifically told us not to do this, but fuck him, we've got propaganda to sell".

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

 

[Pogo]

Back then the Democrats were the southern conservatives and the Republicans were the northern liberals. Today it’s the Democrats who are the southern conservatives. And we know what that means.

Lying as always deantard?

From the days of Andrew Jackson who founded the shameful democrats unto today, democrats have promoted a centralized and powerful government, have been racist, first against the Indians, then against blacks, now against whites, and have infringed the liberty of others.

democrats are as stupid as the retarded twin when confronted by his mother: "Billy, you raped your sister last year" to which Billy says "Nuhn Uhn, I was Bobby then and Bobby was Billy so I'm innocent and Bobby is guilty."

You're a fucking retard, a liar, and a scumbag; which are your virtues...

Oh good. Pothead is here. The Minister of Mendacity. I figured it out from all the posts written to invisible Ignorami.

Guess what Pothead, speaking of liars, you're wrong on this too. Andrew Jackson didn't found the Democratic Party. He was in fact the last elected POTUS to attain the WH without a party. The founder of the DP, that would be one Martin van Buren.

I see you've been schooled on your "Lee never owned a slave in his life" so that'll do for now.

Cheers.

/offtopic

Lee lost, and surrendered and then became post war, a symbol of reconciliation between the North and South.

I agree with that. As I already noted repeatedly, Lee did *NOT* approve of statues and monuments. As I've said in the past, those who use Robert E. Lee for their own self-serving purposes by putting propaganda in the mouth of a deceased man who can't speak for himself, DIShonor his wishes by doing that, and those statues should be accompanied by a plaque reading "General Lee specifically told us not to do this, but fuck him, we've got propaganda to sell".

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

 

[Correll]

Lying as always deantard?

From the days of Andrew Jackson who founded the shameful democrats unto today, democrats have promoted a centralized and powerful government, have been racist, first against the Indians, then against blacks, now against whites, and have infringed the liberty of others.

democrats are as stupid as the retarded twin when confronted by his mother: "Billy, you raped your sister last year" to which Billy says "Nuhn Uhn, I was Bobby then and Bobby was Billy so I'm innocent and Bobby is guilty."

You're a fucking retard, a liar, and a scumbag; which are your virtues...

Oh good. Pothead is here. The Minister of Mendacity. I figured it out from all the posts written to invisible Ignorami.

Guess what Pothead, speaking of liars, you're wrong on this too. Andrew Jackson didn't found the Democratic Party. He was in fact the last elected POTUS to attain the WH without a party. The founder of the DP, that would be one Martin van Buren.

I see you've been schooled on your "Lee never owned a slave in his life" so that'll do for now.

Cheers.

/offtopic

Lee lost, and surrendered and then became post war, a symbol of reconciliation between the North and South.

I agree with that. As I already noted repeatedly, Lee did *NOT* approve of statues and monuments. As I've said in the past, those who use Robert E. Lee for their own self-serving purposes by putting propaganda in the mouth of a deceased man who can't speak for himself, DIShonor his wishes by doing that, and those statues should be accompanied by a plaque reading "General Lee specifically told us not to do this, but fuck him, we've got propaganda to sell".

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

 

[Pogo]

Oh good. Pothead is here. The Minister of Mendacity. I figured it out from all the posts written to invisible Ignorami.

Guess what Pothead, speaking of liars, you're wrong on this too. Andrew Jackson didn't found the Democratic Party. He was in fact the last elected POTUS to attain the WH without a party. The founder of the DP, that would be one Martin van Buren.

I see you've been schooled on your "Lee never owned a slave in his life" so that'll do for now.

Cheers.

/offtopic

Lee lost, and surrendered and then became post war, a symbol of reconciliation between the North and South.

I agree with that. As I already noted repeatedly, Lee did *NOT* approve of statues and monuments. As I've said in the past, those who use Robert E. Lee for their own self-serving purposes by putting propaganda in the mouth of a deceased man who can't speak for himself, DIShonor his wishes by doing that, and those statues should be accompanied by a plaque reading "General Lee specifically told us not to do this, but fuck him, we've got propaganda to sell".

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person.

So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

 

[Correll]

Lee lost, and surrendered and then became post war, a symbol of reconciliation between the North and South.

I agree with that. As I already noted repeatedly, Lee did *NOT* approve of statues and monuments. As I've said in the past, those who use Robert E. Lee for their own self-serving purposes by putting propaganda in the mouth of a deceased man who can't speak for himself, DIShonor his wishes by doing that, and those statues should be accompanied by a plaque reading "General Lee specifically told us not to do this, but fuck him, we've got propaganda to sell".

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person. So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.


Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Even I know from over a thousand miles away that that's a different city.

If I live in Columbus Georgia can I go vote in the mayor election in Columbus Ohio?

You're too stupid to be voting anywhere.

Think of that when you're trying to figure out why you can't go to a polling place in Missouri and vote for the mayor of Kansas City Kansas.

WTF does that have to do with anything.

You tell me -- you're the one who just tried to tell us KCK and KCMO are the same thing.

They are. It's all one big metro area. It's called Kansas City.

Sluggo has to change reality - party orders.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course they can and they should not remove moments to a brave warrior.

They should remove monuments of a traitor.

Okay, so remove all monuments to Obama.

Then what?

It's an attack on our history that must be preserved for future generations warts and all.

Here we are in a civil war again. What was that about those who fail to learn from history?

The Antebellum South was a horrible society. Feudalism where a tiny monied elite had absolute control of state governments and preyed on the populace at large. Georgia with the small holder act that allowed large plantations to literally steal land from small farmers. Poor whites fared worse than black slaves. I have nothing good to say about the south. BUT erasing history is what the Taliban and other tyrants do.

Poor whites fared worse than black slaves, Smfh. That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on this message board.

It’s all part of Lost Cause Revisionist history

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?
That makes four million black slaves OK

 

[rightwinger]

They should remove monuments of a traitor.

Okay, so remove all monuments to Obama.

Then what?

It's an attack on our history that must be preserved for future generations warts and all.

No, it's not honoring men who DON'T DESERVE to be honored.

And in the conspicuouis case of Robert E. Lee, a man who DIDN'T WANT to be honored.

It sails over the hoods of the statue-fetishists that it's the removal of Lee statues that at least observes his wishes, and the erection of them that he opposed. Which in turn reveals that the agenda of the statue-fetishists is entirely self-serving.

He was worried that the celebration of Confederate Soldiers would lead to division and revanchism. He did not foresee that America as a whole would be able to accept and embrace the South, as an equal with it's own regional pride and celebration of it's heritage.


Your desire to smear people who support memorials to their past soldiers as "statue fetishists" is just you being an asshole.

Statue fetishist......I like that one

 

[Correll]

They should remove monuments of a traitor.

Okay, so remove all monuments to Obama.

Then what?

It's an attack on our history that must be preserved for future generations warts and all.

Here we are in a civil war again. What was that about those who fail to learn from history?

The Antebellum South was a horrible society. Feudalism where a tiny monied elite had absolute control of state governments and preyed on the populace at large. Georgia with the small holder act that allowed large plantations to literally steal land from small farmers. Poor whites fared worse than black slaves. I have nothing good to say about the south. BUT erasing history is what the Taliban and other tyrants do.

Poor whites fared worse than black slaves, Smfh. That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on this message board.

It’s all part of Lost Cause Revisionist history

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?
That makes four million black slaves OK

No sane person could read uncensored's post and conclude "lost cause".


YOu are just a troll.

 

[Correll]

Okay, so remove all monuments to Obama.

Then what?

It's an attack on our history that must be preserved for future generations warts and all.

No, it's not honoring men who DON'T DESERVE to be honored.

And in the conspicuouis case of Robert E. Lee, a man who DIDN'T WANT to be honored.

It sails over the hoods of the statue-fetishists that it's the removal of Lee statues that at least observes his wishes, and the erection of them that he opposed. Which in turn reveals that the agenda of the statue-fetishists is entirely self-serving.

He was worried that the celebration of Confederate Soldiers would lead to division and revanchism. He did not foresee that America as a whole would be able to accept and embrace the South, as an equal with it's own regional pride and celebration of it's heritage.


Your desire to smear people who support memorials to their past soldiers as "statue fetishists" is just you being an asshole.

Statue fetishist......I like that one

you would. It take good people, with a completely reasonable position, and dismisses them and marginalizing them, with even a hint of accusation of sexual perversion.


Good for people like you, that know you cannot make an argument honestly.

 

[Scamp]

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?

Absolutely whites were slaves. But we got over it.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with that. As I already noted repeatedly, Lee did *NOT* approve of statues and monuments. As I've said in the past, those who use Robert E. Lee for their own self-serving purposes by putting propaganda in the mouth of a deceased man who can't speak for himself, DIShonor his wishes by doing that, and those statues should be accompanied by a plaque reading "General Lee specifically told us not to do this, but fuck him, we've got propaganda to sell".

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person. So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.

If they use that image to misrepresent that figure, then it's dishonest. And no one has the right to be dishonest.

Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

No. I agree that it was simply the right thing to do. And we should hasten to add, his plea to not put statues up was part of that work at reconciliation. It's an honorable goal. Honorable goals should not be disrespected.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "moral authority" unless it refers to an accepted precept such as ... honoring the wishes of the dead. I don't think people can "own" moral authority. It simply IS.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absolutely whites were slaves. But we got over it.

Because you weren't slaves in this country. Duh. Damn people are stupid...

 

[Correll]

I like the way you are citing General Lee as a moral Authority on this matter. Would you say that his views should be respected because of his Moral Authority as a former rebellion leader who embraced unity and reconciliation, or is it something else?

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person. So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.

If they use that image to misrepresent that figure, then it's dishonest. And no one has the right to be dishonest.

Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

No. I agree that it was simply the right thing to do. And we should hasten to add, his plea to not put statues up was part of that work at reconciliation. It's an honorable goal. Honorable goals should not be disrespected.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "moral authority" unless it refers to an accepted precept such as ... honoring the wishes of the dead. I don't think people can "own" moral authority. It simply IS.

1. Misrepresent? Who or what is doing that?

2. So, you cite Lee as an Authority to defer to, but can't explain why. That is disappointing. I can only conclude that you cited him, because he agreed with you. Me? I consider him an important historical figure and a great American historical figure.

 

[Pogo]

It's very simple. I would say, as I already did say, that those were his wishes expressed while he was alive. Had those wishes been honored and statues not erected, that fact would be obscure trivia. But in the event the propagandists had to do what he specifically asked them NOT to do. Which (again) speaks volumes about whose agenda means more to said propagandists --- their purported hero, or their own.

Because that's how propaganda works; the objective is never honest.

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person. So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.

If they use that image to misrepresent that figure, then it's dishonest. And no one has the right to be dishonest.

Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

No. I agree that it was simply the right thing to do. And we should hasten to add, his plea to not put statues up was part of that work at reconciliation. It's an honorable goal. Honorable goals should not be disrespected.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "moral authority" unless it refers to an accepted precept such as ... honoring the wishes of the dead. I don't think people can "own" moral authority. It simply IS.

1. Misrepresent? Who or what is doing that?

2. So, you cite Lee as an Authority to defer to, but can't explain why. That is disappointing. I can only conclude that you cited him, because he agreed with you. Me? I consider him an important historical figure and a great American historical figure.

Both of these have been answered, repeatedly.

1- the LCC (Lost Cause Cult)

2 - Explained above -- To the extent he's an "authority to defer to" it's his image and his request. Some third party cannot overrule one's own request of one's own image. That just isn't valid. Sure they can go ahead and put that statue up anyway, but they cannot do so without countermanding those wishes, and that remains. Forever.

 

[rightwinger]

Completely different situations, are treated completely differently? What a shock.

My point was about Pogo's claim that the memorials were put up to somehow support White Supremacy instead of the normal reasons communities put up memorials..

--- Which they were, and not by the communities but by (primarily) the UDC who were on a massive propaganda campaign, a larger part of which involved screening and rewriting American history books in the South, as noted earlier. These communities neither erected these monuments nor did they ask for them; they were DONATED by the UDC after THEY commissioned and purchased them.
.....

Just like the written records of the bases of secession of the various Confederate states that specifically refer to the continuation of Slavery as their reasoning, this rhetoric leaves little doubt as to what the intention was.

Hundreds of memorials over generations of time, spread over populations in the tens of millions?


You finding a few racists quotes does not prove anything.


And why do you keep using the abbreviation, UDC, instead of saying who they actually were? The United Daughters of the Confederacy.



For over 5 generations, America as a whole has accepted the South's celebration of it's heritage and culture as part of the larger American culture and heritage.


That you libs have decided at this late date, that suddenly Southern Whites are not allowed to be proud of their heritage and culture, is you being divisive.


Why do you want to tear this nation apart?

Most folks who disagreed with these racist traitors being honored didn't have a voice until now.

You are FAR more racist than Robert E. Lee, who never owned a slave in his life, was. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson said "Slavery is an abomination in the eyes of almighty God."

Because you are stupid, a racist, and an ignorant bigot, you seek to erase history - not just through the DNC Taliban destroying artwork, but also the facts of history.

Lee took up arms against the United States of America you ignorant fool. Stop reading His-Story and learn some real damn history for a change.

Lee personally owned slaves that he inherited upon the death of his mother, Ann Lee, in 1829. (His son, Robert E. Lee Jr., gave the number as three or four families.) Following the death of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, in 1857, Lee assumed command...

Myths & Misunderstandings | Lee as a slaveholder ...
acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder

Lee was a nasty slaveholder

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable was called in, who gave us the number ofl ashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to "lay it on well," an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.

 

[Correll]

But, why should his words have any weight? Because of the strength of his arguments? Because of the Moral Authority he had as a former general?


What is your motivation in listening to him? Is it just because he agrees with you? I hope you have more than that.

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person. So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.

If they use that image to misrepresent that figure, then it's dishonest. And no one has the right to be dishonest.

Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

No. I agree that it was simply the right thing to do. And we should hasten to add, his plea to not put statues up was part of that work at reconciliation. It's an honorable goal. Honorable goals should not be disrespected.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "moral authority" unless it refers to an accepted precept such as ... honoring the wishes of the dead. I don't think people can "own" moral authority. It simply IS.

1. Misrepresent? Who or what is doing that?

2. So, you cite Lee as an Authority to defer to, but can't explain why. That is disappointing. I can only conclude that you cited him, because he agreed with you. Me? I consider him an important historical figure and a great American historical figure.

Both of these have been answered, repeatedly.

1- the LCC (Lost Cause Cult)

2 - Explained above -- To the extent he's an "authority to defer to" it's his image and his request. Some third party cannot overrule one's own request of one's own image. That just isn't valid. Sure they can go ahead and put that statue up anyway, but they cannot do so without countermanding those wishes, and that remains. Forever.

1. Southern Pride and Heritage is not Lost Cause. Your claim otherwise is you misrepresenting tens of millions of good southern people, indeed, scores of millions of good Americans who support Historical Statues.



2. But he does not own his image. He was a public figure and he is an historical figure of great importance. It is completely reasonable that he would be included in any movement to memorialize the service of the Confederates. I thought I might be getting though to you, but you wiggled away

 

[Correll]

--- Which they were, and not by the communities but by (primarily) the UDC who were on a massive propaganda campaign, a larger part of which involved screening and rewriting American history books in the South, as noted earlier. These communities neither erected these monuments nor did they ask for them; they were DONATED by the UDC after THEY commissioned and purchased them.
.....

Just like the written records of the bases of secession of the various Confederate states that specifically refer to the continuation of Slavery as their reasoning, this rhetoric leaves little doubt as to what the intention was.

Hundreds of memorials over generations of time, spread over populations in the tens of millions?


You finding a few racists quotes does not prove anything.


And why do you keep using the abbreviation, UDC, instead of saying who they actually were? The United Daughters of the Confederacy.



For over 5 generations, America as a whole has accepted the South's celebration of it's heritage and culture as part of the larger American culture and heritage.


That you libs have decided at this late date, that suddenly Southern Whites are not allowed to be proud of their heritage and culture, is you being divisive.


Why do you want to tear this nation apart?

Most folks who disagreed with these racist traitors being honored didn't have a voice until now.

You are FAR more racist than Robert E. Lee, who never owned a slave in his life, was. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson said "Slavery is an abomination in the eyes of almighty God."

Because you are stupid, a racist, and an ignorant bigot, you seek to erase history - not just through the DNC Taliban destroying artwork, but also the facts of history.

Lee took up arms against the United States of America you ignorant fool. Stop reading His-Story and learn some real damn history for a change.

Lee personally owned slaves that he inherited upon the death of his mother, Ann Lee, in 1829. (His son, Robert E. Lee Jr., gave the number as three or four families.) Following the death of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, in 1857, Lee assumed command...

Myths & Misunderstandings | Lee as a slaveholder ...
acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder

Lee was a nasty slaveholder

He was an icon of reconciliation and unity.

 

[Pogo]

Because it's HIS OWN IMAGE, that's why.

WHO OWNS one's own image?

You haven't told us why after-the-fact propagandists should prevail over somebody else's image in conflict with that person's wishes. Sounds kinda like ----------- owning a person. So you're actually suggesting that some wanker who wants to use your image for propaganda, should have dominion over your image that you specifically denied them before you died.

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.

If they use that image to misrepresent that figure, then it's dishonest. And no one has the right to be dishonest.

Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

No. I agree that it was simply the right thing to do. And we should hasten to add, his plea to not put statues up was part of that work at reconciliation. It's an honorable goal. Honorable goals should not be disrespected.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "moral authority" unless it refers to an accepted precept such as ... honoring the wishes of the dead. I don't think people can "own" moral authority. It simply IS.

1. Misrepresent? Who or what is doing that?

2. So, you cite Lee as an Authority to defer to, but can't explain why. That is disappointing. I can only conclude that you cited him, because he agreed with you. Me? I consider him an important historical figure and a great American historical figure.

Both of these have been answered, repeatedly.

1- the LCC (Lost Cause Cult)

2 - Explained above -- To the extent he's an "authority to defer to" it's his image and his request. Some third party cannot overrule one's own request of one's own image. That just isn't valid. Sure they can go ahead and put that statue up anyway, but they cannot do so without countermanding those wishes, and that remains. Forever.

1. Southern Pride and Heritage is not Lost Cause. Your claim otherwise is you misrepresenting tens of millions of good southern people, indeed, scores of millions of good Americans who support Historical Statues.

Correct, they are not the same thing. Therefore do not conflate them.

"Southern pride and heritage" is a cultural entity, a living breathing one. It lives in families, language, foods, music, customs and all the various manifestations of culture. For me it lives in my cousins, deceased parents aunts and uncles, places they took us, the food they fed us, the Stars and Bars I inherited from my mother, songs we played together, the very house I live in, and by the way it's absolutely subdivided into distinct and diverse regional cultures. The Cult of the Lost Cause on the other hand is a deceitful dishonest propaganda campaign designed to whitewash history.

2. But he does not own his image. He was a public figure and he is an historical figure of great importance. It is completely reasonable that he would be included in any movement to memorialize the service of the Confederates. I thought I might be getting though to you, but you wiggled away

So ---- "the state", or "the campaign" owns people now? Does said state or campaign get to determine how you will dress, wear your hair or beard and where you will live in life? It must, if it gets to edit your wishes to the opposite of what they were in death once you're out of the way to object.

It's an incontrovertible FACT that Robert E. Lee specifically opined that such statues NOT be erected. That means, because "one equals one", that those who do erect Lee statues are specifically disrespecting him while claiming by their action to do the opposite. At the very least, purporting themselves to be better judges of what Reconciliation than Lee himself, the very object they supposedly seek to glorify.

But they're not glorifying Lee, are they. They're glorifying their own historical bullshit. Lee put them in that position, and they went ahead and did it anyway, in the example posted yesterday in New Orleans, with his arms folded facing North in defiant confrontational posture, stark contrast to Lee's actual wish for reconciliation (that you yourself correctly cited). There's only one reason to do that, and it's outright lying about history. It's selling propaganda on the back of a dead man who's not around to object any more.

Long story short --- that statue wasn't removed because it was Lee. It was removed because it's a Lie.

 

[Correll]

But people don't own their own image. People take pictures of politicians and celebrities and keep them, and post them and use them without permission.

If they use that image to misrepresent that figure, then it's dishonest. And no one has the right to be dishonest.

Do you agree that Lee's work at reconciliation after the war, gave him some level of Moral Authority?

No. I agree that it was simply the right thing to do. And we should hasten to add, his plea to not put statues up was part of that work at reconciliation. It's an honorable goal. Honorable goals should not be disrespected.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "moral authority" unless it refers to an accepted precept such as ... honoring the wishes of the dead. I don't think people can "own" moral authority. It simply IS.

1. Misrepresent? Who or what is doing that?

2. So, you cite Lee as an Authority to defer to, but can't explain why. That is disappointing. I can only conclude that you cited him, because he agreed with you. Me? I consider him an important historical figure and a great American historical figure.

Both of these have been answered, repeatedly.

1- the LCC (Lost Cause Cult)

2 - Explained above -- To the extent he's an "authority to defer to" it's his image and his request. Some third party cannot overrule one's own request of one's own image. That just isn't valid. Sure they can go ahead and put that statue up anyway, but they cannot do so without countermanding those wishes, and that remains. Forever.

1. Southern Pride and Heritage is not Lost Cause. Your claim otherwise is you misrepresenting tens of millions of good southern people, indeed, scores of millions of good Americans who support Historical Statues.

Correct, they are not the same thing. Therefore do not conflate them.

"Southern pride and heritage" is a cultural entity, a living breathing one. It lives in families, language, foods, music, customs and all the various manifestations of culture. For me it lives in my cousins, deceased parents aunts and uncles, places they took us, the food they fed us, the Stars and Bars I inherited from my mother, songs we played together, the very house I live in, and by the way it's absolutely subdivided into distinct and diverse regional cultures. The Cult of the Lost Cause on the other hand is a deceitful dishonest propaganda campaign designed to whitewash history.

2. But he does not own his image. He was a public figure and he is an historical figure of great importance. It is completely reasonable that he would be included in any movement to memorialize the service of the Confederates. I thought I might be getting though to you, but you wiggled away

So ---- "the state", or "the campaign" owns people now? Does said state or campaign get to determine how you will dress, wear your hair or beard and where you will live in life? It must, if it gets to edit your wishes to the opposite of what they were in death once you're out of the way to object.

It's an incontrovertible FACT that Robert E. Lee specifically opined that such statues NOT be erected. That means, because "one equals one", that those who do erect Lee statues are specifically disrespecting him while claiming by their action to do the opposite. At the very least, purporting themselves to be better judges of what Reconciliation than Lee himself, the very object they supposedly seek to glorify.

But they're not glorifying Lee, are they. They're glorifying their own historical bullshit. Lee put them in that position, and they went ahead and did it anyway, in the example posted yesterday in New Orleans, with his arms folded facing North in defiant confrontational posture, stark contrast to Lee's actual wish for reconciliation (that you yourself correctly cited). There's only one reason to do that, and it's outright lying about history. It's selling propaganda on the back of a dead man who's not around to object any more.

Long story short --- that statue wasn't removed because it was Lee. It was removed because it's a Lie.

1. You are the one conflating the Lost Cause movement with tens of millions of good southern people who, while not Lost Causers, are proud of their heritage and culture. YOu, not me.


2. They are focusing on certain aspects of the Confederacy, such as the bravery and skill and service of the Confederate fighting men. This is not lying. We all pick and choose what to celebrate in our history and culture. ALL cultures do this. Indeed, it is part of progress.