Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[Rustic]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

It's funny progressives think that Southerners invented slavery, really they were quite amateur At it. At the same time as the Civil War and before slavery was the norm with Indian tribes all over the Americas… The do-gooders nowadays don't bring that up… LOL
But those other cases of slavery don't fit their story book narrative on How all you white people are bad if you don't hate yourself.
It's selective on what they the progressives Believe in do not believe, my ancestors, the sioux Indian tribes treated their slaves beyond awful for centuries - they not only tortured them but they tortured their families that they did not kill off first. One of their favorite methods was to skin a captured person alive. There's a reason why the Sioux and Cheyenne along with many others Indian tribes cannot get along to this day… History has that way on people.
I don't see the bleeding hearts bringing that reality up. Lol

 

[Vandalshandle]

From Colonial times up to the Civil War, Americans though of themselves as being citizens of a state first, and a citizen of the USA second. The civil war reversed that way of thinking.

 

[rightwinger]

Article 1, Section 9. The great debate between Calhoun and Webster. The Compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. The caning of Charles Sumner. Harpers Ferry.

Any of this shit ring a bell?

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

Nope. It was about nothing more than slavery. To say otherwise is to be completely and willfully ignorant of our nation's history.

The racist Democrats' () reason for leaving the Union was over slavery. They said so themselves!

Any other complaints did not rise to the level of secession. Only slavery did.

So it had nothing to do with taxes and states rights...

Exactly. "States rights" was the smokescreen for slavery. Just like "states rights" were the smokescreen for Jim Crow laws.

Did you read the declarations of secession? Of course you didn't.

Out of all those declarations, taxes are mentioned once. And guess what it is about:

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

Your laughter emoticon is the laughter of a willfully stupid creduloid.

So keep going, you ignorant fool. This is fun.

Not every southerner had slaves in fact most really did not, they could not afford them. But only a fool would think that a southerner could not separate slavery from states rights.
Like i said the most honorable best leader involved in the Civil War by a long shot was General Lee…
The portrayal of the Civil War being all about slavery and only about slavery makes for good movies but that's about it. Reality shows otherwise

Not every southerner had slaves...but they had a class of people that they were officially superior to
You may be a dirty, illiterate hog farmer without a pot to piss in....but you were still better than a slave

Propaganda of the era had Lincoln not only freeing the slaves but allowing them to vote and marry white women

Lincoln had to be stopped

 

[Rustic]

Nice glossy PC coating over history. So why didn't Lincoln emancipate all of the slaves on January 1st, 1863? If the war was about slavery, then why weren't all the slaves freed until well after the war was over?

The war, caused by secession in order to ensure Southern slavery, became a struggle to keep states in the Union. And, eventually, slavery became the weapon Lincoln used against the South. He killed the reason for them to secede. He took step by step. He succeeded, and it would have been better for the southern states to not have seceded (heh).

The south overplayed their hand and lost bigly

Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery. He was probably going to be an obscure, one term President. He may have passed some legislation limiting the expansion of slavery, but couldn't have abolished it

By seceding and provoking a war, the South ended up losing their slaves within five years....it would have taken 20-30 years otherwise

The election of Lincoln set off a panic throughout the south.....Lincoln is going to take our slaves away, we had better secede to ensure we can keep them forever

Slavery was going to eventually end even in a Confederate America. What they did was accelerate the process and kill 600,000 Americans. The men who caused that should not be honored

The best and the most honorable leader in the Civil War was General Lee... fact
Saying the Civil War was "ALL'' And/or "just" about slavery is just basically progressive politically correct elementary history…

Any way you define it....the war was about slavery
The Confederacy was formed to preserve the institution of slavery forever

Lee had a choice to make....Stand for human dignity or stand for his state
He chose wrong

He did not believe in slavery, he did not have slaves. Like I said there was more to it than just slavery…

 

[Rustic]

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

Nope. It was about nothing more than slavery. To say otherwise is to be completely and willfully ignorant of our nation's history.

The racist Democrats' () reason for leaving the Union was over slavery. They said so themselves!

Any other complaints did not rise to the level of secession. Only slavery did.

So it had nothing to do with taxes and states rights...

Exactly. "States rights" was the smokescreen for slavery. Just like "states rights" were the smokescreen for Jim Crow laws.

Did you read the declarations of secession? Of course you didn't.

Out of all those declarations, taxes are mentioned once. And guess what it is about:

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

Your laughter emoticon is the laughter of a willfully stupid creduloid.

So keep going, you ignorant fool. This is fun.

Not every southerner had slaves in fact most really did not, they could not afford them. But only a fool would think that a southerner could not separate slavery from states rights.
Like i said the most honorable best leader involved in the Civil War by a long shot was General Lee…
The portrayal of the Civil War being all about slavery and only about slavery makes for good movies but that's about it. Reality shows otherwise

Not every southerner had slaves...but they had a class of people that they were officially superior
You may be a dirty, illiterate hog farmer without a pot to piss in....but you were still better than a slave

Propaganda of the era had Lincoln not only freeing the slaves but allowing them to vote and marry white women

Lincoln had to be stopped

Lincoln was a fascist at heart… Anyone that would suspend habeas corpus has to have been.

 

[miketx]

New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?

First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.

This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.

And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.

Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?

Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?

You know the answer.

The Civil War wasn't even a rebellion. I was certain people in Southern States who decided they would try and take over that part of the United States.

Not sure why it needs any celebration.

The Confederacy is also symbolic of human slavery, which is bad.

States rights is what it was fought over.

 

[rightwinger]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

It's funny progressives think that Southerners invented slavery, really they were quite amateur At it. At the same time as the Civil War and before slavery was the norm with Indian tribes all over the Americas… The do-gooders nowadays don't bring that up… LOL
But those other cases of slavery don't fit their story book narrative on How all you white people are bad if you don't hate yourself.
It's selective on what they the progressives Believe in do not believe, my ancestors, the sioux Indian tribes treated their slaves beyond awful for centuries - they not only tortured them but they tortured their families that they did not kill off first. One of their favorite methods was to skin a captured person alive. There's a reason why the Sioux and Cheyenne along with many others Indian tribes cannot get along to this day… History has that way on people.
I don't see the bleeding hearts bringing that reality up. Lol

The south had 4 million slaves
Ten percent of the US population was in bondage

 

[rightwinger]

New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?

First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.

This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.

And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.

Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?

Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?

You know the answer.

The Civil War wasn't even a rebellion. I was certain people in Southern States who decided they would try and take over that part of the United States.

Not sure why it needs any celebration.

The Confederacy is also symbolic of human slavery, which is bad.

States rights is what it was fought over.

A states right to allow slavery

 

[Rustic]

Not every southerner had slaves in fact most really did not, they could not afford them. But only a fool would think that a southerner could not separate slavery from states rights.

Actually that was a lot like the 'death tax' which taxed estates of $3.5 million or more. Repeal of it was from people living in trailer parks, who would never be subject to it unless they won the lottery. Yet like the southeners who couldn't afford slaves, the rich convinced them to fight the fight to make the rich, even richer.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus what did that prove? Basically he was a delusional control freak… He would do anything to force his government on people that did not agree with him.

Habeas Corpus is suspended in all wars Moron!

This is why you can shoot a slave owning Democrat Johnny Reb on site and not be put on trial for it.

I would say a Civil War is different than an actual war with another country or entity… Moron

 

[rightwinger]

The war, caused by secession in order to ensure Southern slavery, became a struggle to keep states in the Union. And, eventually, slavery became the weapon Lincoln used against the South. He killed the reason for them to secede. He took step by step. He succeeded, and it would have been better for the southern states to not have seceded (heh).

The south overplayed their hand and lost bigly

Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery. He was probably going to be an obscure, one term President. He may have passed some legislation limiting the expansion of slavery, but couldn't have abolished it

By seceding and provoking a war, the South ended up losing their slaves within five years....it would have taken 20-30 years otherwise

The election of Lincoln set off a panic throughout the south.....Lincoln is going to take our slaves away, we had better secede to ensure we can keep them forever

Slavery was going to eventually end even in a Confederate America. What they did was accelerate the process and kill 600,000 Americans. The men who caused that should not be honored

The best and the most honorable leader in the Civil War was General Lee... fact
Saying the Civil War was "ALL'' And/or "just" about slavery is just basically progressive politically correct elementary history…

Any way you define it....the war was about slavery
The Confederacy was formed to preserve the institution of slavery forever

Lee had a choice to make....Stand for human dignity or stand for his state
He chose wrong

He did not believe in slavery, he did not have slaves. Like I said there was more to it than just slavery…

Lee did own slaves
He fought to defend the institution of slavery ...that is why Virginia seceded

Lee was not as noble as his image

 

[Vandalshandle]

Growing up in the 1950's in the deep South, I heard the words, "state's rights" every day. By then, the meaning was no longer "slavery". It was a code word for "segregation".

 

[Ame®icano]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

It's funny progressives think that Southerners invented slavery, really they were quite amateur At it. At the same time as the Civil War and before slavery was the norm with Indian tribes all over the Americas… The do-gooders nowadays don't bring that up… LOL
But those other cases of slavery don't fit their story book narrative on How all you white people are bad if you don't hate yourself.
It's selective on what they the progressives Believe in do not believe, my ancestors, the sioux Indian tribes treated their slaves beyond awful for centuries - they not only tortured them but they tortured their families that they did not kill off first. One of their favorite methods was to skin a captured person alive. There's a reason why the Sioux and Cheyenne along with many others Indian tribes cannot get along to this day… History has that way on people.
I don't see the bleeding hearts bringing that reality up. Lol

The south had 4 million slaves
Ten percent of the US population was in bondage

... and regardless, you still support democrats.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives want to overlook their past sins/even forget them, the fact remains it was not just about slavery although that was the cause that took up the headlines. To say taxes and states rights had nothing to do with the Civil War is selective at best. Also at the same time Indian tribes all over the Americas had countless slaves... my ancestors had centuries of slave ownership to call their own… The Sioux Indian tribes. Fact

Nobody said it was ONLY about slavery. It was about preserving the union as the number one reason. But in the process of doing that, the slavery question had to be addressed.

Yes, but the way they did it was all wrong, the suspending habeas corpus was absolutely unnecessary... The act showed who the real Lincoln was.. a delusional control freak.
Like I said the most honorable leader involved in the Civil War was Robert E Lee no one was even close…

You should stick to Sioux history, Rustic. Lincoln (illegally) suspended habeas corpus for a very good reason. He threw the Maryland legislature in jail before they could vote to succeed, which would have left Washington D.C. in the middle of the Confederacy.

The fact remains Lincoln was a delusional control freak…

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd suggest a reading of Kenneth Stampp's books "The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South" and "America in 1857"

Good reads.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Progressives want to overlook their past sins/even forget them, the fact remains it was not just about slavery although that was the cause that took up the headlines. To say taxes and states rights had nothing to do with the Civil War is selective at best. Also at the same time Indian tribes all over the Americas had countless slaves... my ancestors had centuries of slave ownership to call their own… The Sioux Indian tribes. Fact

Nobody said it was ONLY about slavery. It was about preserving the union as the number one reason. But in the process of doing that, the slavery question had to be addressed.

Yes, but the way they did it was all wrong, the suspending habeas corpus was absolutely unnecessary... The act showed who the real Lincoln was.. a delusional control freak.
Like I said the most honorable leader involved in the Civil War was Robert E Lee no one was even close…

You should stick to Sioux history, Rustic. Lincoln (illegally) suspended habeas corpus for a very good reason. He threw the Maryland legislature in jail before they could vote to succeed, which would have left Washington D.C. in the middle of the Confederacy.

The fact remains Lincoln was a delusional control freak…

Have it your way, Rustic. i suspect that you are an expert on "delusional".

 

[Rustic]

I wonder why the pseudocons are working so hard to defend the confederates. They start topics about the confederates being racist Democrats every month!

They will do it in the same thread......
Defend the Confederacy and then blame the Democrats for being Confederates

It's funny progressives think that Southerners invented slavery, really they were quite amateur At it. At the same time as the Civil War and before slavery was the norm with Indian tribes all over the Americas… The do-gooders nowadays don't bring that up… LOL
But those other cases of slavery don't fit their story book narrative on How all you white people are bad if you don't hate yourself.
It's selective on what they the progressives Believe in do not believe, my ancestors, the sioux Indian tribes treated their slaves beyond awful for centuries - they not only tortured them but they tortured their families that they did not kill off first. One of their favorite methods was to skin a captured person alive. There's a reason why the Sioux and Cheyenne along with many others Indian tribes cannot get along to this day… History has that way on people.
I don't see the bleeding hearts bringing that reality up. Lol

The south had 4 million slaves
Ten percent of the US population was in bondage

True, no one is saying slavery is a good thing. But at the same time it was never a new thing. Like I said at the same time Indians all over the Americas had slaves for centuries… Millions of them.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The fact remains, there was a lot more to the Civil War than just slavery. To think otherwise is delusional

Nope. It was about nothing more than slavery. To say otherwise is to be completely and willfully ignorant of our nation's history.

The racist Democrats' () reason for leaving the Union was over slavery. They said so themselves!

Any other complaints did not rise to the level of secession. Only slavery did.

So it had nothing to do with taxes and states rights...

Exactly. "States rights" was the smokescreen for slavery. Just like "states rights" were the smokescreen for Jim Crow laws.

Did you read the declarations of secession? Of course you didn't.

Out of all those declarations, taxes are mentioned once. And guess what it is about:

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

Your laughter emoticon is the laughter of a willfully stupid creduloid.

So keep going, you ignorant fool. This is fun.

Not every southerner had slaves in fact most really did not, they could not afford them. But only a fool would think that a southerner could not separate slavery from states rights.
Like i said the most honorable best leader involved in the Civil War by a long shot was General Lee…
The portrayal of the Civil War being all about slavery and only about slavery makes for good movies but that's about it. Reality shows otherwise

Not every southerner had slaves...but they had a class of people that they were officially superior to
You may be a dirty, illiterate hog farmer without a pot to piss in....but you were still better than a slave

Propaganda of the era had Lincoln not only freeing the slaves but allowing them to vote and marry white women

Lincoln had to be stopped

Lincoln would have rounded up every last black person and shipped them all back to Africa.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives want to overlook their past sins/even forget them, the fact remains it was not just about slavery although that was the cause that took up the headlines. To say taxes and states rights had nothing to do with the Civil War is selective at best. Also at the same time Indian tribes all over the Americas had countless slaves... my ancestors had centuries of slave ownership to call their own… The Sioux Indian tribes. Fact

Nobody said it was ONLY about slavery. It was about preserving the union as the number one reason. But in the process of doing that, the slavery question had to be addressed.

Yes, but the way they did it was all wrong, the suspending habeas corpus was absolutely unnecessary... The act showed who the real Lincoln was.. a delusional control freak.
Like I said the most honorable leader involved in the Civil War was Robert E Lee no one was even close…

You should stick to Sioux history, Rustic. Lincoln (illegally) suspended habeas corpus for a very good reason. He threw the Maryland legislature in jail before they could vote to succeed, which would have left Washington D.C. in the middle of the Confederacy.

The fact remains Lincoln was a delusional control freak…

Have it your way, Rustic. i suspect that you are an expert on "delusional".

Lincoln has the blood of the Civil War on his hands because he was a fascist at heart. The suspending of habeas corpus showed his true colors…

 

[Rustic]

From Colonial times up to the Civil War, Americans though of themselves as being citizens of a state first, and a citizen of the USA second. The civil war reversed that way of thinking.

Seeing on how the country has turned out is not all that bad of a thing?
Like I said the only thing worse than nationalism is globalism…

 

[Rustic]

The south overplayed their hand and lost bigly

Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery. He was probably going to be an obscure, one term President. He may have passed some legislation limiting the expansion of slavery, but couldn't have abolished it

By seceding and provoking a war, the South ended up losing their slaves within five years....it would have taken 20-30 years otherwise

The election of Lincoln set off a panic throughout the south.....Lincoln is going to take our slaves away, we had better secede to ensure we can keep them forever

Slavery was going to eventually end even in a Confederate America. What they did was accelerate the process and kill 600,000 Americans. The men who caused that should not be honored

The best and the most honorable leader in the Civil War was General Lee... fact
Saying the Civil War was "ALL'' And/or "just" about slavery is just basically progressive politically correct elementary history…

Any way you define it....the war was about slavery
The Confederacy was formed to preserve the institution of slavery forever

Lee had a choice to make....Stand for human dignity or stand for his state
He chose wrong

He did not believe in slavery, he did not have slaves. Like I said there was more to it than just slavery…

Lee did own slaves
He fought to defend the institution of slavery ...that is why Virginia seceded

Lee was not as noble as his image

I said he was the most honorable of all the leaders involved in the Civil War... and no he was not a fan of slavery. The delusional progresses will have you think that.