Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[rightwinger]

The history that has been destroyed is the revisionist history of the Confederacy as a honorable institution. It was one on the worst countries ever conceived in the history of mankind

Actually Bot, the Antebellum south under the USA was worse.

It was not established as a Slave Country

 

[Pogo]

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Yep, democrats.

The Antebellum South was like California today, 100% democrat controlled. The methods and goals really haven't changed in all that time. Scumbag Newsom is making the whole state into a plantation under the Silicone Valley Oligarchs.

Once AGAIN Pothead pulls his history out of his ass.

That "Solid (Democratic) South" didn't happen until AFTER the Civil War, Dingo.

What a dumbfuck.

{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.

Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}

Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com

You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..

Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.

The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)

Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.

Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.

The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.

What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

There were no "democrats" --- or even Democrats (learn the difference) in the Confederacy. There were no Republicans, no Whigs, no Constitutional Unionists, no Know Nothings, no Federalists, no Democratic Republicans, no NOTHING. The Confederacy lasted all of four years and it never developed ANY political parties Neither did this country in ITS first four (and more) years (Wash(ington's political party was ... what?)

Just another dance, What happened to all those slave owners? they all morphed into the democratic party...

The post I answered that you cut out, said this:

As answered, the US Senate and House of Representatives, were and still are by definition part of the government of the USA --- Not the CSA.

and davis a democrat was part of the house and senate of the USA.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There were no "democrats" --- or even Democrats (learn the difference) in the Confederacy. There were no Republicans, no Whigs, no Constitutional Unionists, no Know Nothings, no Federalists, no Democratic Republicans, no NOTHING. The Confederacy lasted all of four years and it never developed ANY political parties Neither did this country in ITS first four (and more) years (Wash(ington's political party was ... what?)

Just another dance, What happened to all those slave owners? they all morphed into the democratic party...

The post I answered that you cut out, said this:

As answered, the US Senate and House of Representatives, were and still are by definition part of the government of the USA --- Not the CSA.

and davis a democrat was part of the house and senate of the USA.

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You are embarrassing yourself.

Be glad it's not you this time?

 

[Pogo]

There were no "democrats" --- or even Democrats (learn the difference) in the Confederacy. There were no Republicans, no Whigs, no Constitutional Unionists, no Know Nothings, no Federalists, no Democratic Republicans, no NOTHING. The Confederacy lasted all of four years and it never developed ANY political parties Neither did this country in ITS first four (and more) years (Wash(ington's political party was ... what?)

Just another dance, What happened to all those slave owners? they all morphed into the democratic party...

There's no such thing. There is a Democratic Party, which got put together a good three hundred years after Slavery began on these shores, it having no need of a political party to buy and sell slaves, and those slave owners turned over for generations and centuries before that point. The founder of that party, who was a POTUS candidate for the Free Soil Party, got beat in his re-election bid by a Whig slaveowner who was succeeded by a Democrat slaveowner who was succeeded by another Whig slaveowner who was succeeded by two more Democrats who didn't own slaves and didn't believe in it, so I'm not seeing your pattern here.

NOBODY ANYWHERE has ever, in the history of humanity, needed a political party to engage in Slavery. It wasn't a political condition. It was a commercial condition.

The simple fact REMAINS --- the Confederacy had no political parties. Presumably had it survived the War and developed beyond its four years it would have come up with some but ------------------ it didn't. I really don't give a shit what kind of mythology you'd like to desperately cling to like some security blanket, them's the facts.

The post I answered that you cut out, said this:

As answered, the US Senate and House of Representatives, were and still are by definition part of the government of the USA --- Not the CSA.

and davis a democrat was part of the house and senate of the USA.

It's "Davis", not "davis" and "Democrat" not "democrat"; it's "House" not "house" and "Senate" not "senate". After that you just killed your own point by finally finding the shift key.

What a maroon.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

There's no such thing. There is a Democratic Party, which got put together a good three hundred years after Slavery began on these shores, it having no need of a political party to buy and sell slaves, and those slave owners turned over for generations and centuries before that point. The founder of that party, who was a POTUS candidate for the Free Soil Party, got beat in his re-election bid by a Whig slaveowner who was succeeded by a Democrat slaveowner who was succeeded by another Whig slaveowner who was succeeded by two more Democrats who didn't own slaves and didn't believe in it, so I'm not seeing your pattern here.

just more dance, sounds like an argument KKK democrats would try to get away with... slave owners became democrats, who became liberal democrats, who stood in the doorway of school buildings during the civil rights movement, used dogs for crowd control and who now point fingers at everyone else...starting to see a pattern yet? [not that a pattern is even necessary to be true, just another misdirection that doesn't hold water] just about every [if not every] stance against civil rights for the black community in our history has been by democrats of the liberal variety.

NOBODY ANYWHERE has ever, in the history of humanity, needed a political party to engage in Slavery. It wasn't a political condition. It was a commercial condition.

No one [or at least not me] said it was a condition, You're just answering something that is easier to answer than what I posted

Jefferson Davis - Wikipedia

Jefferson Finis Davis[a] (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American politician who served as the president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865. As a member of the Democratic Party, he represented Mississippi in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives before the American Civil War.

 

[Pogo]

just more dance, sounds like an argument KKK democrats would try to get away with... slave owners became democrats, who became liberal democrats, who stood in the doorway of school buildings during the civil rights movement, used dogs for crowd control and who now point fingers at everyone else...starting to see a pattern yet? [not that a pattern is even necessary to be true, just another misdirection that doesn't hold water] just about every [if not every] stance against civil rights for the black community in our history has been by democrats of the liberal variety.
Jefferson Davis - Wikipedia

Jefferson Finis Davis[a] (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American politician who served as the president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865. As a member of the Democratic Party, he represented Mississippi in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives before the American Civil War.

There is no such thing as a "Liberal Democrat" --- or a "Liberal anything" -- standing in a schoolhouse door.
Can't be done. The whole basis of Liberalism is that "all men are created equal". That leaves zero room for racism.

What a dumbass. And we thought you were embarrassing yourself BEFORE.

 

[Scamp]

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Yep, democrats.

The Antebellum South was like California today, 100% democrat controlled. The methods and goals really haven't changed in all that time. Scumbag Newsom is making the whole state into a plantation under the Silicone Valley Oligarchs.

Once AGAIN Pothead pulls his history out of his ass.

That "Solid (Democratic) South" didn't happen until AFTER the Civil War, Dingo.

What a dumbfuck.

{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.

Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}

Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com

You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..

Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.

The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)

Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.

Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.

The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.

What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.

Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.

 

[Pogo]

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Yep, democrats.

The Antebellum South was like California today, 100% democrat controlled. The methods and goals really haven't changed in all that time. Scumbag Newsom is making the whole state into a plantation under the Silicone Valley Oligarchs.

Once AGAIN Pothead pulls his history out of his ass.

That "Solid (Democratic) South" didn't happen until AFTER the Civil War, Dingo.

What a dumbfuck.

{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.

Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}

Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com

You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..

Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.

The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)

Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.

Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.

The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.

What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.

Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.

I also left out that van Buren was the only POTUS whose native language was not English. Not really relevant.

Van Buren was a "slave owner" in even less a way than Grant was --- his father had owned six slaves, he inherited one, who escaped, and Van Buren said "fuck it'. And that was way before politics. He considered Slavery to be immoral and spoke loudly against it. So thanks for bringing that up.

 

[Scamp]

Yep, democrats.

The Antebellum South was like California today, 100% democrat controlled. The methods and goals really haven't changed in all that time. Scumbag Newsom is making the whole state into a plantation under the Silicone Valley Oligarchs.

Once AGAIN Pothead pulls his history out of his ass.

That "Solid (Democratic) South" didn't happen until AFTER the Civil War, Dingo.

What a dumbfuck.

{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.

Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}

Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com

You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..

Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.

The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)

Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.

Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.

The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.

What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.

Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.

I also left out that van Buren was the only POTUS whose native language was not English. Not really relevant.

Van Buren was a "slave owner" in even less a way than Grant was --- his father had owned six slaves, he inherited one, who escaped, and Van Buren said "fuck it'. And that was way before politics. He considered Slavery to be immoral and spoke loudly against it. So thanks for bringing that up.

Lots of Yankee slave owners were for slavery before they were against it. Ben Franklin from PA was another. He bought and sold slaves. Money was more important than the morality of slavery to him.

 

[Scamp]

The history that has been destroyed is the revisionist history of the Confederacy as a honorable institution. It was one on the worst countries ever conceived in the history of mankind

Actually Bot, the Antebellum south under the USA was worse.

It was not established as a Slave Country

The USA had slavery from day one.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN Pothead pulls his history out of his ass.

That "Solid (Democratic) South" didn't happen until AFTER the Civil War, Dingo.

What a dumbfuck.

{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.

Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}

Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com

You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..

Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.

The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)

Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.

Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.

The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.

What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.

Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.

I also left out that van Buren was the only POTUS whose native language was not English. Not really relevant.

Van Buren was a "slave owner" in even less a way than Grant was --- his father had owned six slaves, he inherited one, who escaped, and Van Buren said "fuck it'. And that was way before politics. He considered Slavery to be immoral and spoke loudly against it. So thanks for bringing that up.

Lots of Yankee slave owners were for slavery before they were against it. Ben Franklin from PA was another. He bought and sold slaves. Money was more important than the morality of slavery to him.

Again, that's incredibly fascinating and we're all feverishly taking copious notes on any scraps of paper we can find, but this thread is neither about Slavery, nor about Ben Franklin, nor about anyone else whose entire lifespan preceded the Civil War.

What don't you GET about that?

 

[Pogo]

The history that has been destroyed is the revisionist history of the Confederacy as a honorable institution. It was one on the worst countries ever conceived in the history of mankind

Actually Bot, the Antebellum south under the USA was worse.

It was not established as a Slave Country

The USA had slavery from day one.

The USA had slavery for three centuries before it was the USA.

AND?

 

[Flash]

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It is a history of hate and disgrace

And the democratic party.

Of Southern hatred and bigotry

Bigotry that existed for two hundred years before the Democratic Party

What does any of that have to do with this Orwellian, Soviet style attempt to destroy history? Why are people acting like the Taliban and destroying statues? I know you're a hard core leftist communitst. But those like you and other unpatriotic individuals have no right to destroy our national history.

Why in the hell would you honor men that were traitors to the country. I don't give a damn if that was your great, great grandfather or not. Do you think Birmingham, AL should have a statue or monument of Bull Connor on display.

Doesn't the DNC already have one? What about Albert Gore? Fritz Hollings, Robert Byrd, Orval Faubus? All great democrats. Of course "great democrat" is like "great raw sewage."

Well don't forget Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond. Republicans are in the same sewer.

 

[rightwinger]

The history that has been destroyed is the revisionist history of the Confederacy as a honorable institution. It was one on the worst countries ever conceived in the history of mankind

Actually Bot, the Antebellum south under the USA was worse.

It was not established as a Slave Country

The USA had slavery from day one.

We did not separate from England to ensure we could have slavery forever.

The CSA did

 

[Correll]

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.

You mean those good God Fearin, Christian Southerners who enslaved other human beings and then denied them basic human rights for another 100yrs. You are talking about those Good Southerners.

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

You're right he is a historic figure, a man that will be forever known as a traitor.

1. No, I was clearly talking about modern Southerns, who are good people, and want to be abe to celebrate their history and culture like everyone else. It is telling that you have to work so hard to avoid what I am actually saying, to even pretend to defend your position.

Who wants to celebrate folks who enslaved folks and enacted Jim Crow Laws to discriminate against others.

2. He and all the Confederates were forgiven and pardoned long ago, by the very people that actually fought and defeated them. Your pretense of caring about that, is not credible. This is about your hatred and bigotry against modern Southern whites, and you know it.

Who were they forgiven and pardoned by? Andrew Johnson, another racist POS that was a Southerner. That would be like a Nazi pardoning Hitler and saying all is forgiven. These clowns were racist traitors and putting up statues and monuments for fools like you isn't going to change that.

1. What other group, do you examine and judge whether or not they are allowed to celebrate their heritage and culture?


2. They were forgiven and accepted back into America, by the rest of America, including, the very men that fought and defeated them. Who are you, to have the Moral Authority to over rule them and withdraw that forgiveness? FIVE FUCKING GENERATIONS AFTER THE FACT?

 

[Coyote]

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.

You mean those good God Fearin, Christian Southerners who enslaved other human beings and then denied them basic human rights for another 100yrs. You are talking about those Good Southerners.

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

You're right he is a historic figure, a man that will be forever known as a traitor.

1. No, I was clearly talking about modern Southerns, who are good people, and want to be abe to celebrate their history and culture like everyone else. It is telling that you have to work so hard to avoid what I am actually saying, to even pretend to defend your position.

Who wants to celebrate folks who enslaved folks and enacted Jim Crow Laws to discriminate against others.

2. He and all the Confederates were forgiven and pardoned long ago, by the very people that actually fought and defeated them. Your pretense of caring about that, is not credible. This is about your hatred and bigotry against modern Southern whites, and you know it.

Who were they forgiven and pardoned by? Andrew Johnson, another racist POS that was a Southerner. That would be like a Nazi pardoning Hitler and saying all is forgiven. These clowns were racist traitors and putting up statues and monuments for fools like you isn't going to change that.

1. What other group, do you examine and judge whether or not they are allowed to celebrate their heritage and culture?


2. They were forgiven and accepted back into America, by the rest of America, including, the very men that fought and defeated them. Who are you, to have the Moral Authority to over rule them and withdraw that forgiveness? FIVE FUCKING GENERATIONS AFTER THE FACT?

The Confederacy was treason.

What other group in the world is given a holiday to commemorate treason? Is their entire culture defined by this and only this? That is what you seem to be arguing.

 

[Correll]

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.

He didn’t have any choice

He was lucky he wasn’t thrown in jail with Jeff Davis

He lost, surrendered and became a icon of reconciliation and unity. Our ancestors, the ones that actually fought and defeated the South, accepted that and supported it.

And that set the tone and policy of the nation as a whole for the next 5 generations.

Really, since they couldn't own slaves anymore they enacted Jim Crow racism. Yea that was real unity.

What moral authority do you have, that is greater than that of the men that fought and defeated the Confederacy, and freed the slaves?

Has nothing to do with moral authority, when you take up arms against a sovereign nation you are a traitor. Also what moral authority do you have to try and justify immoral folks treatment of other human beings.

1. You are the one pretending to be upset over "treason". The treason issue, AND the underlying issue that sparked it, were both resolved to the Union's satisfaction. Jim Crow is you moving the goal posts. Which is another way of saying, you are admitting that your actual stated reasons, have been refuted.


2. It totally does have to do with Moral Authority. THe men who had to fight and bleed to defeat that rebellion, accepted their surrender and forgave them and welcomed them back into the nation as full equals. You do not have the Moral Authority to gain say that. '