Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[esthermoon]

Funny how Lenin,who is responsible for the deaths of millions, has a statue in Seattle that causes no problems for the left.
View attachment 123243

A statue of Lenin in Seattle? Wow...that's really incredible!
Why is there a statue of Lenin in Seattle?

 

[wjmacguffin]

You have a very cliché outlook on the civil war. Sometimes, its like you copy your posts strait from a DNC email.

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

The "lawfully" elected govt was tyrannical.

You have a very cliché outlook on the civil war. Sometimes, its like you copy your posts strait from a DNC email.

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

Wanting to keep the states together isn't tyranny. Jailing the opposition for simply having opinions, is. His generals killed and raped people, killed off livestock so they stay hungry and burnt their homes to the ground. THAT is.
I wasn't blaming the civil war on Lincoln. I was just saying his tyranny had something to do with it. Lots of things had caused it.
If they seceded, they weren't traitors, actually. I mean, think about it...

That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. I know. Some of those could be patriots. Just because they fought on a different side, doesn't mean they weren't. Again, some people were fighting FOR freedom.
No, people were fighting against a tyrannical federal government. Look at what Lincoln ACTUALLY did t accomplish his ideals.
I blame the start of the civil war initially on the south. The federal govt baited them and they took it. The north wanted war or collectivism.

1) In order to say the Civil War is based in part on Lincoln's "tyranny," said tyranny would have to come before the Civil War began. Otherwise, any such tyranny is a reaction to the South, not a cause of their treason. (The tyranny is still bad, mind you. Not defending it. Just saying it's not a reason for the South to secede and attack the US.) Please link to evidence of Lincoln's behavior *before* secession began.

2) I did think about it. Seceding over slavery not being encouraged anymore is bullshit *and* traitorous because there were (past tense) American citizens who were upset over a presidential election. Instead of protesting or running new candidates, they declared war on the US. That's pretty much the definition of treason. If California, New York, and some other liberal states seceded from and attacked the US over Trump, they would be traitors as well. You know that. You agree with that. But you make an exception for Confederates because ... they're from the South? They're conservative? Dunno, really.

3) You cannot be a patriot for the United States when fighting against the United States. Seriously, your logic is fucked up. They could be patriots for the CSA, of course, which is why making US monuments to the enemy is so messed up. General Lee is not a patriot of the US, and neither is Jefferson Davis. Both declared war on the US because Lincoln wouldn't extend slavery to new western states.

 

[rightwinger]

So they are taking down a monument dedicated to an insurrection of white racists to stop integration

Battle of Liberty Place - Wikipedia

The Battle of Liberty Place, or Battle of Canal Street, was an attempted insurrection by the Crescent City White League against the Reconstruction Louisiana state government on September 14, 1874, in New Orleans, where the capital of Louisiana was at that time. Five thousand members of the White League, a paramilitary organization of the Democratic Party, made up largely of Confederate veterans, fought against the outnumbered Metropolitan Police and state militia. . No insurgents were charged in the action.

In 1891, the city erected a monument to commemorate and praise the insurrection from the Democratic Party point of view, which at the time was in firm political control of the city and state and was in the process of disenfranchising most blacks. The white marble obelisk was placed at a prominent location on Canal Street. In 1932, the city added an inscription that expressed a white supremacist view.

 

[TNHarley]

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

The "lawfully" elected govt was tyrannical.

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

Wanting to keep the states together isn't tyranny. Jailing the opposition for simply having opinions, is. His generals killed and raped people, killed off livestock so they stay hungry and burnt their homes to the ground. THAT is.
I wasn't blaming the civil war on Lincoln. I was just saying his tyranny had something to do with it. Lots of things had caused it.
If they seceded, they weren't traitors, actually. I mean, think about it...

That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. I know. Some of those could be patriots. Just because they fought on a different side, doesn't mean they weren't. Again, some people were fighting FOR freedom.
No, people were fighting against a tyrannical federal government. Look at what Lincoln ACTUALLY did t accomplish his ideals.
I blame the start of the civil war initially on the south. The federal govt baited them and they took it. The north wanted war or collectivism.

1) In order to say the Civil War is based in part on Lincoln's "tyranny," said tyranny would have to come before the Civil War began. Otherwise, any such tyranny is a reaction to the South, not a cause of their treason. (The tyranny is still bad, mind you. Not defending it. Just saying it's not a reason for the South to secede and attack the US.) Please link to evidence of Lincoln's behavior *before* secession began.

2) I did think about it. Seceding over slavery not being encouraged anymore is bullshit *and* traitorous because there were (past tense) American citizens who were upset over a presidential election. Instead of protesting or running new candidates, they declared war on the US. That's pretty much the definition of treason. If California, New York, and some other liberal states seceded from and attacked the US over Trump, they would be traitors as well. You know that. You agree with that. But you make an exception for Confederates because ... they're from the South? They're conservative? Dunno, really.

3) You cannot be a patriot for the United States when fighting against the United States. Seriously, your logic is fucked up. They could be patriots for the CSA, of course, which is why making US monuments to the enemy is so messed up. General Lee is not a patriot of the US, and neither is Jefferson Davis. Both declared war on the US because Lincoln wouldn't extend slavery to new western states.

1) stupid logic. I don't even know where to start. MY argument earlier was, TN originally was for the Union. Then, they joined the confederacy. Look at a historical timeline...
2) They cant be traitors if they weren't citizens. That whole paragraph falls flat on its face. You are full of fallacies.
3)People were fighting FOR FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY. That's why we have a second amendment. That's why they went to war with Europe. How stupid.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Not luck. Just birth. All four of my grandparents were born in Ireland, and I'm a third-generation American. And you don't have to be a slave owner to be on the wrong side of history and morality concerning slavery.

If there were monuments to the Boston shipmen to dragged Africans from their home to Barbados, I would demand those get torn down. If there were monuments to the Trans-Saharan slave trade, I would demand those get torn down too. But again, and please try to pay attention because this is important to the discussion, NEITHER OF THAT APPLIES TO SOUTHERNERS WHO LED AN ARMED REBELLION AGAINST OUR NATION. That's like arguing I need to discuss WWII because this is about the Civil War. It's really, remarkably sad that you know you lost this "debate" and you keep screaming, "Nuh-uh! Look over there!" What's next, you going to bring up sweet tea, peaches, and pecan pie?

They are not Southern heroes. They are traitors to the United States of America. What else do you call someone who fought and killed Americans so they can preserve their precious peculiar institution — which wasn't even in jeopardy? Like today's militia nutjobs, conservative slaveowners back then believed any limit on what they wanted was tyranny. You can call a turd a sandwich all you want, but that don't make it edible.

I'll even say Confederate forces fought bravely and better than Union forces. The North won simply because it had more men and supplies, not because of any military acumen. I can't imagine what the average Southern soldier had to go through, the agonizing decision on whether to fight for slavery or look like a coward. But in the end, isn't it a conservative principle that you're responsible for your own actions?

So call me a fluffy white marshmallow all you want, Sparky. Because at least I don't have treason in my family tree.

One thing you're omitting from your essay is that those "traitors" were too Americans. So any way you put it, it's part of our history. But that's not the point...

I've been all over Europe and Asia, and in a few places in South America and everywhere I went I enjoyed the architecture of monuments, statues, and building of the past. If not amazed, I would at least think about meaning of those objects and history behind it and people who sometimes spent lifetime to create it. I think that is not just me, but a lot of people hold that sentiment deep down and look at it as connection between them and previous generations.

Now, that link to back in time may be something glorious, or even something embarrassing, but weather one or another it something we hope not to forget. All those monuments are put up to ensure that we look back at the past and remember those who build the future "for better or for worse". Because, to forget successes or mistakes of our ancestors and to not learn from them, and let them disappear is something that only someone apathetic would allow. No protest, no anger, not even a feeling of loss, just apathy.

What government criminals are doing now in New Orleans is ensuring destruction of part of American history. Has anyone asked people what they think of it before they decided to do it? WTF, monuments are being destroyed because of their "connection to the South". If we are going to erase the history we don't like, or hate, we'll quickly find ourselves in the world isolated from our ancestors and history in general... and most important, isolated from remembering their mistakes and successes that we learn from. So what is next? Are we going to start taking down churches, because they have their share of dark history that should be erased? Or are we going to butcher ancestors of all those evil people that did that?

Not so long ago ISIS was doing the same thing, erasing the past they don't like, by leveling city of Palmyra. We were all disgusted by it few months ago, just to find out today that we're doing pretty much the same thing. That's fucking insane.

1) By definition, a traitor has to begin as a citizen. Otherwise, they're just enemies. But they renounced their citizenship when they joined another country and waged war against the US. Therefore, they were Americans but voluntarily gave that up.

2) We're not talking about sanitizing US history or clearing our country of architecture, art, etc. This is about one tiny subset of public monuments on public ground maintained by public money. Once again, you try changing the argument to one where you can defend yourself more easily. And once again, you fail.

3) Case in point: The Liberty Place monument was set up to celebrate the Crescent City White League, an early white supremacist group, killing police officers. That can be taught, but are you really willing to defend a public monument glorifying racists killing police? Seriously, I'd really REALLY like to see you defend glorifying racists killing police. Go for it.

4) Le sigh. The ISIS thing again? They blew up religious statues. NOLA took down a monument to racist police killers. How are the two even related, and do you think before writing this shit?

5) There is a difference between recognizing a dark history and celebrating it. France doesn't have monuments glorifying German generals. China doesn't have monuments glorifying Japanese generals. And the US shouldn't have monuments glorifying CSA generals.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

The "lawfully" elected govt was tyrannical.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

Wanting to keep the states together isn't tyranny. Jailing the opposition for simply having opinions, is. His generals killed and raped people, killed off livestock so they stay hungry and burnt their homes to the ground. THAT is.
I wasn't blaming the civil war on Lincoln. I was just saying his tyranny had something to do with it. Lots of things had caused it.
If they seceded, they weren't traitors, actually. I mean, think about it...

That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. I know. Some of those could be patriots. Just because they fought on a different side, doesn't mean they weren't. Again, some people were fighting FOR freedom.
No, people were fighting against a tyrannical federal government. Look at what Lincoln ACTUALLY did t accomplish his ideals.
I blame the start of the civil war initially on the south. The federal govt baited them and they took it. The north wanted war or collectivism.

1) In order to say the Civil War is based in part on Lincoln's "tyranny," said tyranny would have to come before the Civil War began. Otherwise, any such tyranny is a reaction to the South, not a cause of their treason. (The tyranny is still bad, mind you. Not defending it. Just saying it's not a reason for the South to secede and attack the US.) Please link to evidence of Lincoln's behavior *before* secession began.

2) I did think about it. Seceding over slavery not being encouraged anymore is bullshit *and* traitorous because there were (past tense) American citizens who were upset over a presidential election. Instead of protesting or running new candidates, they declared war on the US. That's pretty much the definition of treason. If California, New York, and some other liberal states seceded from and attacked the US over Trump, they would be traitors as well. You know that. You agree with that. But you make an exception for Confederates because ... they're from the South? They're conservative? Dunno, really.

3) You cannot be a patriot for the United States when fighting against the United States. Seriously, your logic is fucked up. They could be patriots for the CSA, of course, which is why making US monuments to the enemy is so messed up. General Lee is not a patriot of the US, and neither is Jefferson Davis. Both declared war on the US because Lincoln wouldn't extend slavery to new western states.

1) stupid logic. I don't even know where to start. MY argument earlier was, TN originally was for the Union. Then, they joined the confederacy. Look at a historical timeline...
2) They cant be traitors if they weren't citizens. That whole paragraph falls flat on its face. You are full of fallacies.
3)People were fighting FOR FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY. That's why we have a second amendment. That's why they went to war with Europe. How stupid.

1) Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were debating with facts. I see now that you want to ignore South Carolina et. al. Gotcha. Also, can't help but notice you completely ignored the argument that Lincoln's tyranny cannot be used to excuse secession since most of that happened before the did anything. I really appreciate your tacit admission that you're wrong.

2) Le sigh. Lemme use small words. Man is US citizen. Man not US citizen so man can attack US. Man is traitor. Better? But hey, I'm find with shifting from "traitor" to "enemy of the United States" if that floats your boat.

3) You do know that something does NOT become true just because you keep saying it, right? I agree that the 2nd Amendment and the Revolutionary War were in response to tyranny. But you keep ignoring the "tyranny" that started the Civil War was over not getting slavery extended to new states.

I understand why you ignore that — it completely destroys your "tyranny" argument and makes you look stupid. You need to rewrite history to reframe Lincoln as an evil man who forced loyal Southerners into seceding. But maybe you can save everyone a lot of time and just admit that you're either 1) wrong or 2) going to continue ignoring things? That would be great, thanks!

 

[wjmacguffin]

The Confederacy was formed to ensure slavery would be protected forever. They already had states rights, what they wanted was the right to keep 40% of their population in bondage forever
This was not a noble cause, it was not something worthy of admiration....it was one of the most horrific nations ever formed
It deserved to be destroyed

Yes. It's much better now that we've moved all that stuff overseas where the US owned companies can get away with paying their slave labor a dollar a day so they can ship their products back here to the Union through the free trade acts started by Mister Bill Clinton.

Wasn't that guy at the end there a Democrat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy being formed to protect the right to own slaves

No, it was formed to protect the right of property owners from having their property taxed and seized by feds without state permission.

But carry on with your alternate reality, and revisionist history.

Which property was seized?
Why wasn't taxation and seizure of private property mentioned by states that seceded?
They all mentioned slavery as a reason for leaving

The confederacy was comprised of 40% people in bondage
How can you support that?

I believe that guy is still defending the owning of people. Sad, really, but not unexpected.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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?

The answer to your question, if you can remember it, has everything to do with that slaughter perpetrated on a black church here awhile back by some white guy who happily waved the rebel flag around while burning the American flag.

Yep. That's the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It's also why these monuments are being removed now instead of years ago.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Funny how Lenin,who is responsible for the deaths of millions, has a statue in Seattle that causes no problems for the left.
View attachment 123243

A statue of Lenin in Seattle? Wow...that's really incredible!
Why is there a statue of Lenin in Seattle?

It was originally a statue in Czechoslovakia, but some rich dude bought it and brought it to Seattle. If it's on private ground, I think it's offensive but there's nothing I can do about it. But if it's on public property, then it should be removed just like a statue of Jefferson Davis.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm surprised some of those racist monuments were not removed 50 years ago

 

[TNHarley]

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

The "lawfully" elected govt was tyrannical.

Nothing to add wjmacguffin?

Sorry, I have a life that requires me to spend huge swaths of time not arguing here.

Here's why you're wrong about Lincoln. He declared he wouldn't allow slavery to spread to new states. That's NOT the same as abolishing slavery and well within his rights as president. But the South decided to secede before "tyrant" Lincoln was ever inaugurated. South Caronlina did so on Dec 20. 6 more followed four months later. You can't say Lincoln was a tyrant that triggered the Civil War when his election (after promising to keep slavery legal) is what caused it, not his actions. Secession | HistoryNet

You are correct that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia all seceded after the fact. That does not mean they aren't traitors for taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government. If they wanted to change Lincoln's stance on not extending slavery to new states, they need to do so within the law. (And again, taking up arms to defend yourself from tyranny is *certainly* acceptable. It what our nation was founded on. But not being able to push slavery into new states is a fucking far cry away from tyranny.)

I fully understand that not everyone who fought for the Confederacy were for slavery. That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. Besides, it was clear to everyone then (and should be clear to everyone now) that the Civil War was about the state's right to have slavery. The only "tyranny" being fought against is the tyranny of not having slavery be legal in new states out west. And that's not fucking tyranny. Any claim to defending Southerners' liberties went out the window when South Carolina started the war by attacking the United States — because the South started the war to make slavery legal in new states WHETHER THE NEW STATES WANTED SLAVERY OR NOT.

Lastly, if my family had fought on with the Confederacy, I would be embarrassed about it. I wouldn't shame my ancestors, but if any were leaders of the Confederacy, then I would openly call them traitors. Because that's what they are.

Wanting to keep the states together isn't tyranny. Jailing the opposition for simply having opinions, is. His generals killed and raped people, killed off livestock so they stay hungry and burnt their homes to the ground. THAT is.
I wasn't blaming the civil war on Lincoln. I was just saying his tyranny had something to do with it. Lots of things had caused it.
If they seceded, they weren't traitors, actually. I mean, think about it...

That's why I'm talking about MONUMENTS TO CONFEDERATE GENERALS AND LEADERSHIP. I know. Some of those could be patriots. Just because they fought on a different side, doesn't mean they weren't. Again, some people were fighting FOR freedom.
No, people were fighting against a tyrannical federal government. Look at what Lincoln ACTUALLY did t accomplish his ideals.
I blame the start of the civil war initially on the south. The federal govt baited them and they took it. The north wanted war or collectivism.

1) In order to say the Civil War is based in part on Lincoln's "tyranny," said tyranny would have to come before the Civil War began. Otherwise, any such tyranny is a reaction to the South, not a cause of their treason. (The tyranny is still bad, mind you. Not defending it. Just saying it's not a reason for the South to secede and attack the US.) Please link to evidence of Lincoln's behavior *before* secession began.

2) I did think about it. Seceding over slavery not being encouraged anymore is bullshit *and* traitorous because there were (past tense) American citizens who were upset over a presidential election. Instead of protesting or running new candidates, they declared war on the US. That's pretty much the definition of treason. If California, New York, and some other liberal states seceded from and attacked the US over Trump, they would be traitors as well. You know that. You agree with that. But you make an exception for Confederates because ... they're from the South? They're conservative? Dunno, really.

3) You cannot be a patriot for the United States when fighting against the United States. Seriously, your logic is fucked up. They could be patriots for the CSA, of course, which is why making US monuments to the enemy is so messed up. General Lee is not a patriot of the US, and neither is Jefferson Davis. Both declared war on the US because Lincoln wouldn't extend slavery to new western states.

1) stupid logic. I don't even know where to start. MY argument earlier was, TN originally was for the Union. Then, they joined the confederacy. Look at a historical timeline...
2) They cant be traitors if they weren't citizens. That whole paragraph falls flat on its face. You are full of fallacies.
3)People were fighting FOR FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY. That's why we have a second amendment. That's why they went to war with Europe. How stupid.

1) Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were debating with facts. I see now that you want to ignore South Carolina et. al. Gotcha. Also, can't help but notice you completely ignored the argument that Lincoln's tyranny cannot be used to excuse secession since most of that happened before the did anything. I really appreciate your tacit admission that you're wrong.

2) Le sigh. Lemme use small words. Man is US citizen. Man not US citizen so man can attack US. Man is traitor. Better? But hey, I'm find with shifting from "traitor" to "enemy of the United States" if that floats your boat.

3) You do know that something does NOT become true just because you keep saying it, right? I agree that the 2nd Amendment and the Revolutionary War were in response to tyranny. But you keep ignoring the "tyranny" that started the Civil War was over not getting slavery extended to new states.

I understand why you ignore that — it completely destroys your "tyranny" argument and makes you look stupid. You need to rewrite history to reframe Lincoln as an evil man who forced loyal Southerners into seceding. But maybe you can save everyone a lot of time and just admit that you're either 1) wrong or 2) going to continue ignoring things? That would be great, thanks!

LOL
You are arguing strawmen. Why don't you go back and re-read my posts?
You should be fine with it. You aren't using the term correctly
Doesn't matter when it came from. Im sorry if I have standards and think a person of power abusing his power is bad. Do you happen to be German?
I never did said Lincoln forced people into secession. ANOTHER STRAWMAN
If you cant discuss this issue on things I actually say, my actual position, I will have to end this. Its pointless.

 

[esthermoon]

Funny how Lenin,who is responsible for the deaths of millions, has a statue in Seattle that causes no problems for the left.
View attachment 123243

A statue of Lenin in Seattle? Wow...that's really incredible!
Why is there a statue of Lenin in Seattle?

It was originally a statue in Czechoslovakia, but some rich dude bought it and brought it to Seattle. If it's on private ground, I think it's offensive but there's nothing I can do about it. But if it's on public property, then it should be removed just like a statue of Jefferson Davis.

Thanks for the infos wjmacguffin!

 

[edward37]

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 ask why? Because these repub nitwits still wish they could own a black or 2 and those statues represent their heroes

 

[rightwinger]

For those objecting to taking down the monuments. Can you explain why this monument should be protected?

 

[Weatherman2020]

For those objecting to taking down the monuments. Can you explain why this monument should be protected?

Because State rights have always been the foundation of our government.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?

On the same street as the statues that causes you to hyperventilate.

You probably don't know who Arthur Ashe is, so go look him up.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how Lenin,who is responsible for the deaths of millions, has a statue in Seattle that causes no problems for the left.
View attachment 123243

A statue of Lenin in Seattle? Wow...that's really incredible!
Why is there a statue of Lenin in Seattle?

Because Seattle is filled with idiot leftists who hyperventilate at a statue of Lee but bow to Lenin as one of their gods.

 

[rightwinger]

For those objecting to taking down the monuments. Can you explain why this monument should be protected?

Because State rights have always been the foundation of our government.

A states right to celebrate white supremacy?

 

[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?

On the same street as the statues that causes you to hyperventilate.

View attachment 123394

You probably don't know who Arthur Ashe is, so go look him up.

Arthur Ashe was a great man worthy of honoring (but not with a god awful statue like that)

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

mainly because the CSA was an illegal gang of traitors

other than that, no prob