Voters Oppose Removing Confederate Monuments

[Freewill]

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?

More accurately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 got the ball rolling.

The following article makes it clear why Mississippi left the Union.

Now the question is, was the issue racism or economic. First of all who does a person hold another in bondage? They do so by having the thought that the one man is not a man at all. If the slave master's daughter was kidnapped and put into bondage do you think that the slave master would think that was something other then a crime? I certainly don't think so.

So until the black man was seen as a man, not cattle, slavery was to continue.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

I've posted that 10 times. These people are ineducable. that's why conservatism appeals to them.

Sorry but you have proven at times not to have the most unbiased of opinions. When you post your opinion without backing no one is going to change their mind.

 

[easyt65]

Did you know you can't find the Disney Movie 'Song of the South' almost ANYWHERE for purchase here in the US? I had to actually buy a copy from Europe...which is really a SHAME.

If you have never seen the movie, you should. It is a classic. Yes, it is set on a plantation that has slaves. It shows a slice of our nations history. It does not hide it, glorify it, etc... It also shares the stories / tale of Uncle Remus - the fictional title character and narrator of a collection of African-American folktales adapted and compiled by Joel Chandler Harris, published in book form in 1881.

One of those African Tales is about the infamous 'Tar Baby', which evidently triggered some people to the point they were about to burn down Disney if they did not pull the movie, which Disney did. So the demands of a minority forced Censorship of a piece / snapshot of our history and of African culture.

Someone recently told me the new Planet of the Apes movie was 'racist' and should be banned from theaters. I replied, 'If it offends YOU, why don't YOU choose not to see it and don't try to prevent the rest of us from seeing it?' That wasn't good enough for them...they had to impose their will on everyone else. THAT is what being a liberal progressive / snowflake is all about.

In the case of these monuments, a minority has declared they are racist and seek to impose their will on the majority...and have already broken laws to impose that will on others.

Let's say the Leftist Extremists are appeased and all Confederate symbols are eradicated from the US....statues, painting, tapestries, books.....then what? What will the left deem offensive and insist has to go....when will the appeasement end?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

More accurately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 got the ball rolling.

The following article makes it clear why Mississippi left the Union.

Now the question is, was the issue racism or economic. First of all who does a person hold another in bondage? They do so by having the thought that the one man is not a man at all. If the slave master's daughter was kidnapped and put into bondage do you think that the slave master would think that was something other then a crime? I certainly don't think so.

So until the black man was seen as a man, not cattle, slavery was to continue.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Mississippi seceded in 1861, seven years following the KNA.

Mississippi Secession Ordinance - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Did you know you can't find the Disney Movie 'Song of the South' almost ANYWHERE for purchase here in the US?

Everybody sing!

 

[Freewill]

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?

More accurately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 got the ball rolling.

The following article makes it clear why Mississippi left the Union.

Now the question is, was the issue racism or economic. First of all who does a person hold another in bondage? They do so by having the thought that the one man is not a man at all. If the slave master's daughter was kidnapped and put into bondage do you think that the slave master would think that was something other then a crime? I certainly don't think so.

So until the black man was seen as a man, not cattle, slavery was to continue.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Mississippi seceded in 1861, seven years following the KNA.

Mississippi Secession Ordinance - Wikipedia

Point?

The states seceded before Lincoln even took office.

 

[Freewill]

Come to think of it, the civil war was the greatest example of the Democrats (left wing) outcome being the exact opposite of their stated intent. They say they left the union to create a greater better nation, and it ended in disaster.

 

[dturner1157]

A number of snowflakes in this forum have said that the voters should decide whether Confederate moderates should be taken down. It appears the voters want them left alone. ANTIFA and BLM are a small fringe, and they do not represent the will of the majority. Does anyone believe the left would desist in their attacks on these monuments if a referendum were held and the voters decided to all them to stay?

Voters Oppose Removing Confederate Monuments - Rasmussen Reports™

Four Confederate monuments were removed from New Orleans earlier this month following complaints that they celebrate racism, and now the city of Baltimore has plans to follow suit. But most voters oppose taking away these remnants of the past even if they are unpopular with some.

While proposals have been made to get rid of monuments such as the Jefferson Memorial and the carving on Stone Mountain in Georgia because they honor men who practiced or defended slavery, just 19% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should erase symbols of its past history that are out of line with current sentiments. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 69% oppose erasing these historical symbols. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.​

IMHO it's State and Local question question, the people in the communities where the monuments in question are located should decide, after all it's the people in the local communities and the States that are affected by them and it's their property that's being used.

A national referendum on such questions would be an infringement upon State Sovereignty and isn't authorized anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, we're supposed to be a Republic not a Unitary Democracy.

Have you not heard?
Lincoln squashed "State Sovereignty", and the "Constitution" when South Carolina tried to leave the Union. A right granted to each state in the Constitution.

There is no right to secede in the Constitution and never was.

Better read it again.............

I don't have to. I've won this argument so many times I feel like I should step back and let someone else here win it.

You have not won anything fool. You sound like Hillary talking about the 2nd amendment is negotiable.
But, I have a rule that is not to argue with fools, so whatever............

 

[Slash]

Secession doesn't contradict the Constitution.

The secession that preceded the Civil War did. Supreme court said so, and unless you want to rip up the Constitution of the United States, and the authority it gave the Supreme Court to make that decision.

 

[Slash]

Interesting that you brought up an act that dealt with slavery. Really pissed off the south that new states would be able to declare slave or not.

Actually that was one of the things that Joseph E Brown (Governor of Georgia at the time) was so upset about. He thought that states rights was going to be a part of the Confederacy. Instead he got a Confederate Constitution that didn't have any new states rights. They didn't even give states the right to choose slave or not slave, all states in the Confederacy as it expanded were to be slave states.

 

[ChrisL]

Your personal opinions of the statues is irrelevant. Not everything is about YOU, leftists. The north wanted to reconcile and reach out to the south and have us all united again for REAL and not just on paper. The south CAN recognize their fallen whether it is "offensive" to you are not. YOU are not the most important thing and YOU are no more important than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that Confederate soldiers are considered legit American veterans of war.

 

[Slash]

Come to think of it, the civil war was the greatest example of the Democrats (left wing) outcome being the exact opposite of their stated intent. They say they left the union to create a greater better nation, and it ended in disaster.

Actually that was before the political shift. Democrats were right wing, the socially conservative party. More states rights, smaller federal government, lower taxes on businesses, centered in rural area's and the south. Wanted private sector to fund larger projects.

The Republicans were based in the large cities in the North, favored larger government, social programs, welfare, money for large government projects, higher taxes to support it all.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

More accurately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 got the ball rolling.

The following article makes it clear why Mississippi left the Union.

Now the question is, was the issue racism or economic. First of all who does a person hold another in bondage? They do so by having the thought that the one man is not a man at all. If the slave master's daughter was kidnapped and put into bondage do you think that the slave master would think that was something other then a crime? I certainly don't think so.

So until the black man was seen as a man, not cattle, slavery was to continue.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Mississippi seceded in 1861, seven years following the KNA.

Mississippi Secession Ordinance - Wikipedia

Point?

The states seceded before Lincoln even took office.

The point is the KNA boiled for seven years in the context of federal intervention of states rights. Regardless of the underlying catalyst, the reason for secession was the federal position. Lincoln was essentially an unknown factor in 1861.

 

[Slash]

Your personal opinions of the statues is irrelevant. Not everything is about YOU, leftists. The north wanted to reconcile and reach out to the south and have us all united again for REAL and not just on paper. The south CAN recognize their fallen whether it is "offensive" to you are not. YOU are not the most important thing and YOU are no more important than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that Confederate soldiers are considered legit American veterans of war.

Not a leftist, just not a fan of those leaders that wanted to rebel and create war with America over their upholding the institution of slavery. You should have no problem with this. You talk about the sides reaching out. You do realize both Robert E Lee and Sherman Douglas talked of putting away the Civil War iconography after the war to unite us again for REAL AND NOT JUST ON PAPER. Of course the Dixiecrats and KKK didn't like that and started putting it back up in response to the civil rights trying to drive that division home. I'd agree that it worked.

 

[ChrisL]

Your personal opinions of the statues is irrelevant. Not everything is about YOU, leftists. The north wanted to reconcile and reach out to the south and have us all united again for REAL and not just on paper. The south CAN recognize their fallen whether it is "offensive" to you are not. YOU are not the most important thing and YOU are no more important than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that Confederate soldiers are considered legit American veterans of war.

Not a leftist, just not a fan of those leaders that wanted to rebel and create war with America over their upholding the institution of slavery. You should have no problem with this. You talk about the sides reaching out. You do realize both Robert E Lee and Sherman Douglas talked of putting away the Civil War iconography after the war to unite us again for REAL AND NOT JUST ON PAPER. Of course the Dixiecrats and KKK didn't like that and started putting it back up in response to the civil rights trying to drive that division home. I'd agree that it worked.

Nobody is upholding the institution of slavery. Slavery is illegal nowadays. The southern people have a right to remember their dead ancestors, whether you find it offensive or not.

 

[ChrisL]

Perhaps this needs to be posted again.

Confederate Soldiers are legal veterans... By Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 (H.R. 358) 72 Statute 133 states – “(3) (e) for the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term ‘veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ‘active, military or naval service’ includes active service in such forces.” As a result of this law the last surviving Confederate Veteran received a U.S. Military pension until his death in 1959, and from that day until present, descendants of Confederate veterans have been able to receive military monuments to place on graves from the Veteran’s Administration for their ancestors. A Confederate Veteran should therefore be treated with the same honor and dignity of any other American veteran.

 

[Darkwind]

Here are two thousand monuments to racism that need to be torn down.

 

[Slash]

The point is the KNA boiled for seven years in the context of federal intervention of states rights. Regardless of the underlying catalyst, the reason for secession was the federal position. Lincoln was essentially an unknown factor in 1861.

What? His winning the white house coming from the abolitionist party is EXACTLY why states said they seceded. Do we have to grab a torch and burn all the minutes of those state congresses where they debated that?


Every Single State that submitted an article of secession labeled Lincoln and his party as a reason why. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

"It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood."

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. "

"by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States."


You want to tell me that this showed up in every talk of secession. In speeches. In every actual letter of secession 3 things came up in all of them. Slavery. Government not enforcing fugitive slave act. Lincoln and his abolitionist party.

You got it right, slavery and fugitive slave act were boiling points that had been growing. Lincoln's election was when they threw in the hat.

But somehow those weren't important.

 

[Slash]

Perhaps this needs to be posted again.

Confederate Soldiers are legal veterans... By Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 (H.R. 358) 72 Statute 133 states – “(3) (e) for the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term ‘veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ‘active, military or naval service’ includes active service in such forces.” As a result of this law the last surviving Confederate Veteran received a U.S. Military pension until his death in 1959, and from that day until present, descendants of Confederate veterans have been able to receive military monuments to place on graves from the Veteran’s Administration for their ancestors. A Confederate Veteran should therefore be treated with the same honor and dignity of any other American veteran.

Yes they are. And I'd honor them and their sacrifice. I would fight if we targeted the soldiers who didn't have a choice, the ones who weren't part of the leadership that founded a new country on slavery and declared war on the US. I'm not with the KKK and Dixiecrats on honoring those leaders, or their causes, or their decisions to slaughter American soldiers. I'm not for trading away actually honoring those soldiers lives to get politically motivated monuments meant to create disharmony against the equal rights movement.

 

[ChrisL]

Perhaps this needs to be posted again.

Confederate Soldiers are legal veterans... By Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 (H.R. 358) 72 Statute 133 states – “(3) (e) for the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term ‘veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ‘active, military or naval service’ includes active service in such forces.” As a result of this law the last surviving Confederate Veteran received a U.S. Military pension until his death in 1959, and from that day until present, descendants of Confederate veterans have been able to receive military monuments to place on graves from the Veteran’s Administration for their ancestors. A Confederate Veteran should therefore be treated with the same honor and dignity of any other American veteran.

Yes they are. And I'd honor them and their sacrifice. I would fight if we targeted the soldiers who didn't have a choice, the ones who weren't part of the leadership that founded a new country on slavery and declared war on the US. I'm not with the KKK and Dixiecrats on honoring those leaders, or their causes, or their decisions to slaughter American soldiers. I'm not for trading away actually honoring those soldiers lives to get politically motivated monuments meant to create disharmony against the equal rights movement.

They are DEAD, so when you attack the monuments to remember them and the war, then you ARE attacking them.

 

[Reasonable]

If they were actually serious about tearing down racist statues they would have started with the Lincoln Memorial.

Lincoln was our greatest president you nutball. Attacking Trump's summer home would be more reasonable..