Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[xotoxi]

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

I was pointing out Redfish's hypocrisy in criticizing people who are offended, and then listing things that offend him.

 

[Redfish]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Maybe, but conservatives don't riot and protest and destroy public and private property. Only leftists do that. The truth is that the company is scared of losing business if too many people know who they are. But its too late, everyone knows and they will probably be out of business when this is over.

The Klan, the ultimate Southern conservatives, did all that, fishyred.

glad you brought up the KKK. It was comprised mostly of democrats and existed in almost every state. Well represented by Bill KKK Byrd of WV.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If it was the south trying to hang on to slavery, why was slavery not mentioned as an issue until two years into the civil war? Why was the north allowed to keep slaves for years after the civil war was over?

Another poster correctly mentioned The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States for your edification, and I thought I'd amplify the significance of how very important slavery was to the five of States that wrote a declaration of secession; Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Within their declarations, all written before South Carolina wantonly and traitorously attacked the United States, slavery is mentioned a total of 83 times.

Traitors and their fellow travelers who took up arms against the United States of America or supported the tearing asunder of our union of states with their allegiance previously and solemnly pledged only to be forsaken, should never be celebrated or remembered as anything but filthy traitors and liars.

 

[TNHarley]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Because Democrats want to erase their history so they can pretend they don't support racism.

Le sigh. Yet another conservative who cannot comprehend how political parties shifted over the years.

Back then, Dems were conservative and Reps were liberal. That's not 100% true because our definition of those labels has changed somewhat, but it still fits.

Dufus wants to pretend Democrats don't want to use skin color to tell people they can't have a job or fill a college opening today.

Loser knows he can't win this argument so he keeps trying to change the subject. Have fun with that, Sparky!

You're the dufus claiming Democrats don't use skin color to grant people jobs or a college education. But we all know Democrats today love that idea.

That is a deflection that has nothing to do with the monuments.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Morally? WTF?

The fact remains they were all American soldiers, in some cases literally brothers fighting brothers, fathers fighting sons.

excellent points and exactly why those statues should remain.

do you libs want the Gettysburg battlefield in Pa plowed under? Just asking.

That's actually a good question. Sincerely, thank you.

For me, no. That would be whitewashing our history. Battlefields cannot be put in a museum someplace, and we still need to teach our Civil War in schools. My issue is with a monument to specific people because we build monuments to honor and thank people. We should not be doing that for people who fought against the United States and helped kill her people.

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

you are missing the point. Lee and Jackson also did many good things for their people and the country. But they are denigrated on one issue only. Whereas you ignore the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves.

I was not comparing Davis to Buddha, I was comparing intolerant American liberals to the Taliban.

Sorry, but sometimes one issue is so severe that it dominates. I'm sure Lee and Davis were good people, but dedicating a memorial to their leadership of an armed treasonous revolt is sad. Mind you, *you* are welcome to do that on your own property. I would even defend your right to do so, I promise! My issue is with public monuments by the US gov't for people who fought against the US gov't.

I'm not ignoring the slave owning past, I'm just saying their good far outweighs their bad.

And taking down statues to traitors is not the same as destroying religious statues. Therefore, your claim is sad and untrue.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Redfish]

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

I was pointing out Redfish's hypocrisy in criticizing people who are offended, and then listing things that offend him.

I make that statement to point out that there are things that offend all of us, but only liberals demand that the offending items or terms be removed. The "tolerant" left. oxymoron

 

[wjmacguffin]

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

geez, do you teach at Berkley? what a pile of BS.

If you think it's bullshit, start poking holes in my response. Post links to proof or evidence showing I'm wrong. Until you can, you're just acting like an angry toddler. "Wah, I don't like what he said! He's WRONG!"

 

[Weatherman2020]

Because Democrats want to erase their history so they can pretend they don't support racism.

Le sigh. Yet another conservative who cannot comprehend how political parties shifted over the years.

Back then, Dems were conservative and Reps were liberal. That's not 100% true because our definition of those labels has changed somewhat, but it still fits.

Dufus wants to pretend Democrats don't want to use skin color to tell people they can't have a job or fill a college opening today.

Loser knows he can't win this argument so he keeps trying to change the subject. Have fun with that, Sparky!

You're the dufus claiming Democrats don't use skin color to grant people jobs or a college education. But we all know Democrats today love that idea.

That is a deflection that has nothing to do with the monuments.

I agree, monuments of Confederate heroes has nothing to do with racism.

 

[Redfish]

excellent points and exactly why those statues should remain.

do you libs want the Gettysburg battlefield in Pa plowed under? Just asking.

That's actually a good question. Sincerely, thank you.

For me, no. That would be whitewashing our history. Battlefields cannot be put in a museum someplace, and we still need to teach our Civil War in schools. My issue is with a monument to specific people because we build monuments to honor and thank people. We should not be doing that for people who fought against the United States and helped kill her people.

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

you are missing the point. Lee and Jackson also did many good things for their people and the country. But they are denigrated on one issue only. Whereas you ignore the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves.

I was not comparing Davis to Buddha, I was comparing intolerant American liberals to the Taliban.

Sorry, but sometimes one issue is so severe that it dominates. I'm sure Lee and Davis were good people, but dedicating a memorial to their leadership of an armed treasonous revolt is sad. Mind you, *you* are welcome to do that on your own property. I would even defend your right to do so, I promise! My issue is with public monuments by the US gov't for people who fought against the US gov't.

I'm not ignoring the slave owning past, I'm just saying their good far outweighs their bad.

And taking down statues to traitors is not the same as destroying religious statues. Therefore, your claim is sad and untrue.

ok, those are your opinions, and you are free to state them as opinions, the problem comes when you claim them as facts that all must agree with. do you understand that?

 

[Redfish]

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

geez, do you teach at Berkley? what a pile of BS.

If you think it's bullshit, start poking holes in my response. Post links to proof or evidence showing I'm wrong. Until you can, you're just acting like an angry toddler. "Wah, I don't like what he said! He's WRONG!"

they are opinions, not facts. I don't have to disprove your opinions, nor do you have to disprove mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Maybe, but conservatives don't riot and protest and destroy public and private property. Only leftists do that. The truth is that the company is scared of losing business if too many people know who they are. But its too late, everyone knows and they will probably be out of business when this is over.

The Klan, the ultimate Southern conservatives, did all that, fishyred.

glad you brought up the KKK. It was comprised mostly of democrats and existed in almost every state. Well represented by Bill KKK Byrd of WV.

They were ultimate Southern conservatives, just like you. The old ways are being crushed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

geez, do you teach at Berkley? what a pile of BS.

If you think it's bullshit, start poking holes in my response. Post links to proof or evidence showing I'm wrong. Until you can, you're just acting like an angry toddler. "Wah, I don't like what he said! He's WRONG!"

they are opinions, not facts. I don't have to disprove your opinions, nor do you have to disprove mine.

wjmacguffin has given the facts, yes, you your misguided opinions, yes.

 

[wjmacguffin]

That's actually a good question. Sincerely, thank you.

For me, no. That would be whitewashing our history. Battlefields cannot be put in a museum someplace, and we still need to teach our Civil War in schools. My issue is with a monument to specific people because we build monuments to honor and thank people. We should not be doing that for people who fought against the United States and helped kill her people.

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

you are missing the point. Lee and Jackson also did many good things for their people and the country. But they are denigrated on one issue only. Whereas you ignore the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves.

I was not comparing Davis to Buddha, I was comparing intolerant American liberals to the Taliban.

Sorry, but sometimes one issue is so severe that it dominates. I'm sure Lee and Davis were good people, but dedicating a memorial to their leadership of an armed treasonous revolt is sad. Mind you, *you* are welcome to do that on your own property. I would even defend your right to do so, I promise! My issue is with public monuments by the US gov't for people who fought against the US gov't.

I'm not ignoring the slave owning past, I'm just saying their good far outweighs their bad.

And taking down statues to traitors is not the same as destroying religious statues. Therefore, your claim is sad and untrue.

ok, those are your opinions, and you are free to state them as opinions, the problem comes when you claim them as facts that all must agree with. do you understand that?

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason ...."

US law since before the Civil War. Fact.
Confederates owed allegiance to the US as US citizens. Fact.
Confederates levied war against the US. Fact.
Ergo, confederates committed treason. Fact.

Sorry, but none of that is an opinion.

 

[Divine Wind]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Because all it takes is one dumbass armed guy/gal to kill over this. This ain't a popularity contest. It's doing what's right.

I agree that calling these places Square and Circle are dumb. But I'll take dumb over glorifying a traitor any day.

Takes a real moron to get worked up over a hundred year old statue, congrats.

So the age of a monument determines it's validity and morality? Cool, thanks. Didn't know that. Also, thanks for not addressing the violence and treason issues. Good to see you're giving up by changing the subject. That's a real common sight in this thread.

You are free to advocate making American history more PC, but I disagree.

The US Capitol building, the White House, Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Montpelier and most railroads east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line were all built with slave labor. By your PC-driven standards, shouldn't they all be torn down in order to avoid offending those opposed to slavery?

 

[wjmacguffin]

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

geez, do you teach at Berkley? what a pile of BS.

If you think it's bullshit, start poking holes in my response. Post links to proof or evidence showing I'm wrong. Until you can, you're just acting like an angry toddler. "Wah, I don't like what he said! He's WRONG!"

they are opinions, not facts. I don't have to disprove your opinions, nor do you have to disprove mine.

If you claim my opinion is bullshit, then you have to either back up your claim or retract it. Actually, you can be a coward and run away. That's certainly a valid third choice.

 

[hunarcy]

Last point: You cannot factually or morally say Confederates are US soldiers. Because they weren't. They were CSA solders. Again, it's sad that you need to lie to feel better about yourself. But whatever helps you get through the day.

Morally? WTF?

The fact remains they were all American soldiers, in some cases literally brothers fighting brothers, fathers fighting sons.

excellent points and exactly why those statues should remain.

do you libs want the Gettysburg battlefield in Pa plowed under? Just asking.

That's actually a good question. Sincerely, thank you.

For me, no. That would be whitewashing our history. Battlefields cannot be put in a museum someplace, and we still need to teach our Civil War in schools. My issue is with a monument to specific people because we build monuments to honor and thank people. We should not be doing that for people who fought against the United States and helped kill her people.

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

Wow, your ignorance is amazing, but you're happy to put it on display. Jefferson Davis was a US Senator and the Secretary of War for the USA in the 1850's. He started the process that led to the building of the Trans-Continental Railroad, the thing that tied the nation together east and west. He was instrumental in obtaining the Gadsden Purchase and modernized the weapons the Army used to defeat the South.

Robert E. Lee was the most respected general in the United States Army in 1860. He served with distinction in the Mexican War, and protected this nation on its southern border right up until the Civil War. He developed the tactics that led the Union Army to victory in the war.

Yes, both of them ended up on the Southern side, but that was because their loyalty to their home State led them to support the cause that neither of them really believed in and both had argued against. I'm not saying they're heroes, but to say they did no good for the nation is false.

 

[Redfish]

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

you are missing the point. Lee and Jackson also did many good things for their people and the country. But they are denigrated on one issue only. Whereas you ignore the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves.

I was not comparing Davis to Buddha, I was comparing intolerant American liberals to the Taliban.

Sorry, but sometimes one issue is so severe that it dominates. I'm sure Lee and Davis were good people, but dedicating a memorial to their leadership of an armed treasonous revolt is sad. Mind you, *you* are welcome to do that on your own property. I would even defend your right to do so, I promise! My issue is with public monuments by the US gov't for people who fought against the US gov't.

I'm not ignoring the slave owning past, I'm just saying their good far outweighs their bad.

And taking down statues to traitors is not the same as destroying religious statues. Therefore, your claim is sad and untrue.

ok, those are your opinions, and you are free to state them as opinions, the problem comes when you claim them as facts that all must agree with. do you understand that?

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason ...."

US law since before the Civil War. Fact.
Confederates owed allegiance to the US as US citizens. Fact.
Confederates levied war against the US. Fact.
Ergo, confederates committed treason. Fact.

Sorry, but none of that is an opinion.

the opinion issue has to do with removing statues, not federal law. Nice try.

 

[Divine Wind]

oh yes it was

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do. The civil war was not about slavery, there were slaves in the union states AFTER the war ended.

Agreed. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Southern states, not elsewhere.

The Emancipation Proclamation
The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

How did the 13th amendment work out?

Better than the Three-Fifths Compromise. It was ratified on December 6th, 1965, eight months after the Civil War ended.

What does that have to do with the fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in secession states?

Emancipation was a major political blow to the south. Not because they were losing their slaves but because they were unable to get Europe to support their cause if it was about slavery
European countries were not going to fight in defense of slavery

Emancipation proclamation was only the first step in the process. 13th amendment freed all slaves forever and by 1870 they had the right to vote

Coincidence?

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?