Voters Oppose Removing Confederate Monuments

[MarkDuffy]

Confederate sympathizers can have their monuments. We have National Park Battlefields, cemeteries & museums. They don't have to be in the middle of downtown or on the steps of government.

America does not celebrate slavery

honoring those who suffered isn't celebrating, and you should learn that lessons not taught will repeat. Just saying, you are naive to think you can erase the past.

Honoring is celebrating.

No one is trying to erase the past. Slavery is America's birth defect. Some of us need to learn from it so as not to repeat it.

post that definition jack that claims honoring is celebrating. Honoring is showing respect with high esteem. We should never forget those families that suffered through slavery of the past and you should be concerned for the slavery that is maintained by the left still today. it's sad. Look at the south side of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, all democratically governed and all in perils.

Are you being intentionally stupid?

someone honored to accept an award isn't someone celebrating. sorry, the two words are different for a reason.

Medal of Honor is not a Medal of Celebration. holy fk you all are trble.

Yes it is

 

[Picaro]

Quite possible, since history is no longer taught in the public school system.

Find me all the public schools that do not teach American history, or teach American history while omitting the Civil War.

All of them. They teach revisionist crap, and a kindergarten version of that. Howard Zinn's nonsense is the primary model.

You're referring to this, for example?

How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

Nope. That's not revision. Slavery was a catalyst in a fight over state's rights, not the primary issue.

Do you think that the fact that the election of an abolitionist president and the states immediately leaving the union is an indication that yeah, slavery was the primary cause?

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee first, ahead of anybody else, along with offers to many southern officers in lower positions as well, Lincoln and the Republicans' platform was aimed at keeping all black people out of the new territories, period, and Illinois and other mid-western states passed tougher Black Codes than they already had to begin with throughout the 1850's, just for starters, and in those states the North 'freed', blacks were herded into 'property camps' and left to die by the hundreds of thousands instead of being allowed to flee north, and in other states Lincoln ordered the 'freed' slaves to stay confined on their plantations and not be allowed to leave without written permission from their new masters; he also dictated their pay: $2 a month.

What CArbineer is whining about is Texas schoolbook reviewers insisting on real history being put in history books, and throwing out the lying nonsense his ilk wants in the books.

 

[bendog]

Local voters and State voters have the final say.

I agree. But apparently Trump and the alt-R disagree.

huh? who are you talking about exactly?

Sweet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The words of Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA:

...the Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man."

How better can one express the belief in white supremacy than that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find me all the public schools that do not teach American history, or teach American history while omitting the Civil War.

All of them. They teach revisionist crap, and a kindergarten version of that. Howard Zinn's nonsense is the primary model.

You're referring to this, for example?

How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

Nope. That's not revision. Slavery was a catalyst in a fight over state's rights, not the primary issue.

Do you think that the fact that the election of an abolitionist president and the states immediately leaving the union is an indication that yeah, slavery was the primary cause?

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee first, ahead of anybody else, along with offers to many southern officers in lower positions as well, Lincoln and the Republicans' platform was aimed at keeping all black people out of the new territories, period, and Illinois and other mid-western states passed tougher Black Codes than they already had to begin with throughout the 1850's, just for starters, and in those states the North 'freed', blacks were herded into 'property camps' and left to die by the hundreds of thousands instead of being allowed to flee north, and in other states Lincoln ordered the 'freed' slaves to stay confined on their plantations and not be allowed to leave without written permission from their new masters; he also dictated their pay: $2 a month.

What CArbineer is whining about is Texas schoolbook reviewers insisting on real history being put in history books, and throwing out the lying nonsense his ilk wants in the books.

Whatever Lincoln was or was not is irrelevant. The South BELIEVED that Lincoln, as a Republican, was allied with the radical Republican abolitionists.

 

[12icer]

Same losers posting the same lies and the same old propaganda. Facts are lost on any liberal idiot, reality is lost on any liberal idiot, Reason is lost on any liberal idiot. History and the truth about it are something that liberals have NO idea about in their little "I have rights, Your rights don't matter" shell. I hate to break it to them but some people will defend their rights and their REAL history.

 

[MarkDuffy]

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

Do you even realize that what Lee is saying there is textbook expression of white supremacy?

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC

 

[MarkDuffy]

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

Are you advocating that we bring back enslavement of black Americans as 'necessary instruction'?

Yeah, that's what I'm advocating....

and that is why we call you deplorable

 

[MarkDuffy]

So so you endorse honoring the suffering of those who gave their lives to bring down the twin towers?

so you think there is honor in that act? wow. go for it traitor.

How can you defend one person who attacked the USA, and not the other?

They use the "they were Americans before they weren't" excuse. osama cannot say that.

It is a good excuse.

Your post was really bad

 

[MarkDuffy]

Find me all the public schools that do not teach American history, or teach American history while omitting the Civil War.

All of them. They teach revisionist crap, and a kindergarten version of that. Howard Zinn's nonsense is the primary model.

You're referring to this, for example?

How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

Nope. That's not revision. Slavery was a catalyst in a fight over state's rights, not the primary issue.

Do you think that the fact that the election of an abolitionist president and the states immediately leaving the union is an indication that yeah, slavery was the primary cause?

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee first, ahead of anybody else, along with offers to many southern officers in lower positions as well, Lincoln and the Republicans' platform was aimed at keeping all black people out of the new territories, period, and Illinois and other mid-western states passed tougher Black Codes than they already had to begin with throughout the 1850's, just for starters, and in those states the North 'freed', blacks were herded into 'property camps' and left to die by the hundreds of thousands instead of being allowed to flee north, and in other states Lincoln ordered the 'freed' slaves to stay confined on their plantations and not be allowed to leave without written permission from their new masters; he also dictated their pay: $2 a month.

What CArbineer is whining about is Texas schoolbook reviewers insisting on real history being put in history books, and throwing out the lying nonsense his ilk wants in the books.

So, you claim he flip-flopped and freed the slaves cuz he got pissed at the South.

 

[Slash]

I wonder, should we just feel sorry for the White nationalists, neo Nazi, KKK, whatever they call themselves now?

I mean they get beat in the Civil war, humiliated in WWII, lose the civil rights movement, watch the KKK go down to a shell of itself, got booted from South Africa, can't even use Pepe the frog anymore and really have become a group that at best can be internet trolls that show a lack of intelligence and "social justice warriors" who go out and get approval to walk around on hot days with tiki torches and shout and try to set the record for the worlds biggest sausage fest (talk about a horrible way to spend the weekend, I'd be a really angry person if that was my life too). Heck, now that Trump has called them thugs and repugnant criminals they felt like they were duped in voting for him even.

I mean Wile E Coyote is even saying "you guys don't tend to win much do you".

 

[MarkDuffy]

I wonder, should we just feel sorry for the White nationalists, neo Nazi, KKK, whatever they call themselves now?

I mean they get beat in the Civil war, humiliated in WWII, lose the civil rights movement, watch the KKK go down to a shell of itself, got booted from South Africa, can't even use Pepe the frog anymore and really have become a group that at best can be internet trolls that show a lack of intelligence and "social justice warriors" who go out and get approval to walk around on hot days with tiki torches and shout and try to set the record for the worlds biggest sausage fest (talk about a horrible way to spend the weekend, I'd be a really angry person if that was my life too). Heck, now that Trump has called them thugs and repugnant criminals they felt like they were duped in voting for him even.

I mean Wile E Coyote is even saying "you guys don't tend to win much do you".

Priceless!
Take a bow!

Still laughing

 

[Picaro]

A couple of good books on the Civil War Era and American elections at the time and slightly previous years:

The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century-- Richard Franklin Bensel

Also by Bensel:

Yankee Levithian: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877

These two are good introductory backgrounders for how elections were held and how elections were held previously to and then radically changed by the elections of Lincoln and the Republicans.

The last chapter of the first book covers elections in the Civil War, and how they were very different from earlier elections, the use of Federal troops to arrest voters who weren't voting for Lincoln's chosen candidates, 'loyalty oaths', and the like.

The American Civil War changed the way men voted. The most important change was the vast expansion of the role played by the federal government and its agents. ... In the north and in the border states, however, the Civil War imposed a new condition on voting: the legitimacy of an election now often depended on whether or not those loyal to the Union prevailed at the polls. ...In the border states and some northern states as well, Union troops and loyal state militia also appeared at the polls. Their appearance was ostensibly intended to maintain order and protect the polls from Confederate guerillas. In practice, however, their influence was more commonly felt through their own informal tests of loyalty; those merely suspected of hostility to the Republican party were often physically ejected from the polling place, whether or not they were willing to swear the require loyalty oath.

pg. 217 of my copy of The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

... and more. Without these Stalinist style tactics, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to get the Senate and Congressional votes they needed to pass such Acts as the Pacific Railroad Act and others. They also needed the slim contingent of remaining Whig abolitionists' votes, hence the much later sudden interest in 'the evils of slavery'.


Now, a short version of the lists of what everybody who could read knew at the time, instead of the fake history being peddled by liars here re the reasons for secession, the main reason being money, of course ...

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles ****ens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Lincoln and his party favored heavily biased economic polices that benefitted the Northern financial and economic interests exclusively, at the expense of the South. What he said or didn't say in some speech doesn't mean squat one way or the other. Nobody expects some politician to come out and say the real reasons they are doing something; because Lincoln didn't say 'I plan to hand my cronies all kinds of subsidies and pass a lot of the tax burden off on southerners and working people' doesn't mean they didn't do exactly that, right off the starting line. We have the record of his intentions in the congressional record.

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

 

[jc456]

So so you endorse honoring the suffering of those who gave their lives to bring down the twin towers?

so you think there is honor in that act? wow. go for it traitor.

How can you defend one person who attacked the USA, and not the other?

they are the USA, isn't the same thing. you can't see it cause you're a racist.

 

[jc456]

honoring those who suffered isn't celebrating, and you should learn that lessons not taught will repeat. Just saying, you are naive to think you can erase the past.

Honoring is celebrating.

No one is trying to erase the past. Slavery is America's birth defect. Some of us need to learn from it so as not to repeat it.

post that definition jack that claims honoring is celebrating. Honoring is showing respect with high esteem. We should never forget those families that suffered through slavery of the past and you should be concerned for the slavery that is maintained by the left still today. it's sad. Look at the south side of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, all democratically governed and all in perils.

Are you being intentionally stupid?

someone honored to accept an award isn't someone celebrating. sorry, the two words are different for a reason.

Medal of Honor is not a Medal of Celebration. holy fk you all are trble.

Yes it is

too funny.

 

[Slash]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee first, ahead of anybody else, along with offers to many southern officers in lower positions as well, Lincoln and the Republicans' platform was aimed at keeping all black people out of the new territories, period, and Illinois and other mid-western states passed tougher Black Codes than they already had to begin with throughout the 1850's, just for starters, and in those states the North 'freed', blacks were herded into 'property camps' and left to die by the hundreds of thousands instead of being allowed to flee north, and in other states Lincoln ordered the 'freed' slaves to stay confined on their plantations and not be allowed to leave without written permission from their new masters; he also dictated their pay: $2 a month.

What CArbineer is whining about is Texas schoolbook reviewers insisting on real history being put in history books, and throwing out the lying nonsense his ilk wants in the books.

What fucking alternate universe did this history book come from? Lincoln and his party NOT ONCE ever took a position of keeping blacks out. Not once did ANY of their laws do anything to that respect. In fact his laws (Emancipation proclamation, freeing slaves in DC) made slaves free men which made sure they could go to ANY state they wanted.

Yes he tried to get Lee to lead his army. Lee said no and sided against the USA.

And you are talking about the contraband camps there. Where Union soldiers rather than return them to slavery called them "contraband of war" to get out of having to send them back? Hundreds of thousands died? What? Slaves were escaping to get TO these camps. They could join the Union Army if they wanted. They formed their own communities.


What kind of revision is this? How many books do you need to burn to get this version of history on top?

 

[jc456]

Local voters and State voters have the final say.

I agree. But apparently Trump and the alt-R disagree.

huh? who are you talking about exactly?

Sweet.

n sour?

 

[jc456]

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

Do you even realize that what Lee is saying there is textbook expression of white supremacy?

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC

inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

The doctrine of the Democratic party today? hly crap, I look at Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson, Baltimore LA, at the dems who have held those cities forever and the plight of the blacks that remain dependent on them. and the continued desire by the left to keep them there. interfering at every opportunity to get in the way of their advancement. They are indeed the true supremacy group.

 

[eddiew37]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee first, ahead of anybody else, along with offers to many southern officers in lower positions as well, Lincoln and the Republicans' platform was aimed at keeping all black people out of the new territories, period, and Illinois and other mid-western states passed tougher Black Codes than they already had to begin with throughout the 1850's, just for starters, and in those states the North 'freed', blacks were herded into 'property camps' and left to die by the hundreds of thousands instead of being allowed to flee north, and in other states Lincoln ordered the 'freed' slaves to stay confined on their plantations and not be allowed to leave without written permission from their new masters; he also dictated their pay: $2 a month.

What CArbineer is whining about is Texas schoolbook reviewers insisting on real history being put in history books, and throwing out the lying nonsense his ilk wants in the books.

What fucking alternate universe did this history book come from? Lincoln and his party NOT ONCE ever took a position of keeping blacks out. Not once did ANY of their laws do anything to that respect. In fact his laws (Emancipation proclamation, freeing slaves in DC) made slaves free men which made sure they could go to ANY state they wanted.

Yes he tried to get Lee to lead his army. Lee said no and sided against the USA.

And you are talking about the contraband camps there. Where Union soldiers rather than return them to slavery called them "contraband of war" to get out of having to send them back? Hundreds of thousands died? What? Slaves were escaping to get TO these camps. They could join the Union Army if they wanted. They formed their own communities.


What kind of revision is this? How many books do you need to burn to get this version of history on top?

From the Book of Trump who equates Washington and Jefferson with the traitor Lee

 

[Slash]

... and more. Without these Stalinist style tactics, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to get the Senate and Congressional votes they needed to pass such Acts as the Pacific Railroad Act and others. They also needed the slim contingent of remaining Whig abolitionists' votes, hence the much later sudden interest in 'the evils of slavery'.

This is amazing. So the Republicans... Which was a combination of the Free Soil abolitionist party, and former whigs which felt the whig party wasn't anti-slavery enough only adopted the interest in the "evils of slavery" to get the less anti-slavery whigs on board?

That's like in 150 years us hearing that Obama had to push Obamacare through to make the Republicans happy. It's that backwards of a view.




And the Pacific Railroad act was sponsored by a Whig who beat a Republican to win his seat. But somehow this bill was a Republican bill they had to sell the Whigs on?



You missed the line where Abraham Lincoln also invaded the South accusing them of having plans to build nuclear weapons, and that only an intercepted text message saved the union.

I mean if we are revising history, can we at least make it a little believable?