Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[MaryL]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

Are you equating the CSA with the Third Reich?

 

[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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

Are you equating the CSA with the Third Reich?

In terms of despicable forms of Government in supposedly civilized societies....they are a government to be despised
Both societies relied on slave labor

 

[MaryL]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

Are you equating the CSA with the Third Reich?

Well, yes. I guess I am. Both fought for enslavement and white dominance. What was the difference?

 

[paperview]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Confederate Monuments are Participation Trophies for the Losers...You Lost Bigly ...Sad ..weak ...Losers

Trolling, taunting and tricksting. You epitomize the far Left, sir! Kudos for being so dedicated to your extremism.

"Trolling, taunting and tricksting" are you saying I am Donald Trump ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[
Are you equating the CSA with the Third Reich?

I am these were slavers ...

 

[Correll]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

Our ancestors, the ones that actually fought and won that war, chose a different path, one of healing the wounds of the war.


As WWII was not a Civil War for the GErmans, they had no internal divisions to overcome.

 

[Correll]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

 

[MaryL]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

Our ancestors, the ones that actually fought and won that war, chose a different path, one of healing the wounds of the war.


As WWII was not a Civil War for the GErmans, they had no internal divisions to overcome.

Think again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

In hindsight maybe removing every memory of its own history was a mistake.

Decades after the war, Germany has removed so much of its history that the removal of the German people and replacement by muslims is a considered reality.

 

[paperview]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

 

[Markle]

As the successes of President Donald Trump rapidly keep unfolding, the Progressives desperately resort to history grasping for a success. Their last success. Success not brought about by the Democrats of today but the responsible, reasonable Democrats of yesteryear.

 

[Correll]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

Our ancestors, the ones that actually fought and won that war, chose a different path, one of healing the wounds of the war.


As WWII was not a Civil War for the GErmans, they had no internal divisions to overcome.

Think again.

My point stands.


Our ancestors, the ones that actually fought and won that war, chose a different path, one of healing the wounds of the war.


Who are you to change that policy and for what? To pander to some modern day crybabies? To smear your enemies?

 

[Correll]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

 

[Correll]

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?

Good point. in the same vein, Germany has outlawed swastikas, and forbids building shrines to Nazis. No statues of Hitler or Himmler in remembrance of Germany's WWII dead.

In hindsight maybe removing every memory of its own history was a mistake.

Decades after the war, Germany has removed so much of its history that the removal of the German people and replacement by muslims is a considered reality.

AND, they seem to have no ability to comprehend nor deal with the rise on antisemitism and violence brought on by the importation of Muslims.

 

[rightwinger]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

 

[Divine Wind]

Confederate Monuments are Participation Trophies for the Losers...You Lost Bigly ...Sad ..weak ...Losers

Trolling, taunting and tricksting. You epitomize the far Left, sir! Kudos for being so dedicated to your extremism.

"Trolling, taunting and tricksting" are you saying I am Donald Trump ?

I see no difference between political extremists except their polarity. Their tactics and desire for authoritarianistic power are the same.

 

[rightwinger]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

The usual Republican doubletalk....Why, I personally support Civil Rights but I think it is up to the states to decide what rights their citizens can have

What a spineless copout

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I see no difference between political extremists except their polarity. Their tactics and desire for authoritarianistic power are the same.

I just want to be left alone by the Private Prison Industry and Nanny Government so I can smoke marijuana without worrying about some Jackwagon throwback to Medieval times like Beauregard Sessions wanting to send the storm troopers against me and my posse ...