What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

[snugglestruggle]

I assume you cited the public law accurately, but since I don't believe there are any surviving veterans of the Civil War, I am further assuming it is essentially moot.

But that probably won't be enough for some partisans in the current environment. I anticipate they will DEMAND its repeal.

I only sited it because it specifically names them as veterans of the United States armed forces entitling them to the same benefits as others who served. The larger point being any memorial to them would receive the same protections. The SJW'S can't touch any statues, monuments or memorials in or on cemeteries, battlefields/ federal land run by the park service, it's already said so. It's significant because Gettysburg alone has hundreds on them. Every major battlefield of the CW has them.

 

[coachdb18]

I assume you cited the public law accurately, but since I don't believe there are any surviving veterans of the Civil War, I am further assuming it is essentially moot.

Well, the fact that the NAACP here in North Carolina has been calling for digging up Confederate dead makes it a present day problem. There is a lot of zealotry adrift in the present environment...

 

[sr71plt]

What is it about 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so' that you don't understand?

I knew it. You didn't even read my post, which led off that Lincoln was only one person involved. Yes, he dragged his feet on it. But slavery was key to the long-term build up to breakup of the union in everything that was happening in taking in new states and those interested in arguing with you on the point can come up with just as many quotes from the time that disagree with you as you can come up with.

And beyond that, what part of THERE ARE A LEGION OF HISTORIANS AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING THAT YOUR VIEW IF FULL OF CRAP don't YOU understand?

That's the point I'm making. This is constantly being argued and your view hasn't been accepted to the degree you want to assume and assert. It's fine with me if you want to cling to your "truth." I don't accept that it has been largely accepted as a truth.

 

[sr71plt]

I only sited it because it specifically names them as veterans of the United States armed forces entitling them to the same benefits as others who served. The larger point being any memorial to them would receive the same protections. The SJW'S can't touch any statues, monuments or memorials in or on cemeteries, battlefields/ federal land run by the park service, it's already said so. It's significant because Gettysburg alone has hundreds on them. Every major battlefield of the CW has them.

On Virginia (and a few other states, I think), none of that matters. They have specific laws preserving memorials to U.S. wars (and Virginia specifically includes both sides of the Civil War) that are on public land. Virginia's law was enacted in 1950. The legislature would have to change the law. In Charlottesville's case, a judge has put a moratorium on the city council doing anything with the statues to, he said, give them time to read the existing law, which is specific enough not to be open to court interpretation.

 

[Hypoxia]

Odd thing about rewriting history, as the Civil War was not about slavery until 1863. The Confederacy was so named because the southern states wanted less federal control, and more state control of government.

The War of Southern Treason was about slavery from the start. The slaveholding feudal South could not compete economically with the industrializing free-labor north. The original South Carolina secessionist traitors wanted a return to British colonial status, subjects to the Crown, with a proviso for maintaining slavery, which the Empire had banned some decades before (at great cost to British merchants). Failing at treason there, they wanted their own feudal nation, free from popular votes. Hence the unconstitutional violent secession. Note that the Confederacy fired the first shots. Who were the aggressors?

The War of Southern Treason was about slavery from up front. This is clear from documents of the time. Slavery was the only common bond of the secessionist states. Non-slaveholding Southerners were not at all happy about their states' treacheries. West Virginians separated from their slaving Eastern lords. Whites in the Southern Appalachians resisted the Confeds, recognizing a shitty deal when they saw it. And they were right.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Well, the fact that the NAACP here in North Carolina has been calling for digging up Confederate dead makes it a present day problem. There is a lot of zealotry adrift in the present environment...

The Democrats always over play a hand when their fringe act up. Its like indulging a spoiled kid, you always regret it later. Let the NAACP push for digging up graves, they should stream it live on facebook. The Republicans will lick their chops, the countries collective stomach will turn.

 

[coachdb18]

I knew it. You didn't even read my post, which led off that Lincoln was only one person involved. Yes, he dragged his feet on it. But slavery was key to the long-term build up to breakup of the union in everything that was happening in taking in new states and those interested in arguing with you on the point can come up with just as many quotes from the time that disagree with you as you can come up with.

And beyond that, what part of THERE ARE A LEGION OF HISTORIANS AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING THAT YOUR VIEW IF FULL OF CRAP don't YOU understand?

That's the point I'm making. This is constantly being argued and your view hasn't been accepted to the degree you want to assume and assert. It's fine with me if you want to cling to your "truth." I don't accept that it has been largely accepted as a truth.

You certainly are stolid in your reverence to your flat Earth belief. 'll give you that.

 

[Adder4321]

I feel as though everyone in this thread cares more about what happened a hundred years ago than what's happening now.

 

[KimGordon67]

In fact, Eastern Europe found a solution. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3941218/Back-USSR-Grutas-Park-Stalin-World-bizarre-Lithuanian-theme-park-giant-statues-communist-leaders-final-resting-place.html

 

[sr71plt]

I'll give you that.

Actually, you won't. You're trying your damnest to oversell what you want to believe.

I'll bet you can't even help yourself from finding and posting yet another stolen "I don't care" photo.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

When I think about statues and monuments that most of us never look at, I think that pigeons need something to shit on.

 

[snugglestruggle]

On Virginia (and a few other states, I think), none of that matters. They have specific laws preserving memorials to U.S. wars (and Virginia specifically includes both sides of the Civil War) that are on public land. Virginia's law was enacted in 1950. The legislature would have to change the law. In Charlottesville's case, a judge has put a moratorium on the city council doing anything with the statues to, he said, give them time to read the existing law, which is specific enough not to be open to court interpretation.

While all you said is true, Federal law Trumps state. Even if the state legislature bow to public pressure and change the law (like they will be asked to) the park service will flip them off and rightly so. Leave the dead in peace, in the past, where they belong.

 

[coachdb18]

I knew it. You didn't even read my post, which led off that Lincoln was only one person involved. Yes, he dragged his feet on it. But slavery was key to the long-term build up to breakup of the union in everything that was happening in taking in new states and those interested in arguing with you on the point can come up with just as many quotes from the time that disagree with you as you can come up with.

And beyond that, what part of THERE ARE A LEGION OF HISTORIANS AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING THAT YOUR VIEW IF FULL OF CRAP don't YOU understand?

That's the point I'm making. This is constantly being argued and your view hasn't been accepted to the degree you want to assume and assert. It's fine with me if you want to cling to your "truth." I don't accept that it has been largely accepted as a truth.

Do I need to point out that Galileo was pretty much alone in his belief that the Earth was indeed not flat?

 

[snugglestruggle]

I feel as though everyone in this thread cares more about what happened a hundred years ago than what's happening now.

Answer me this, why does BLM, Antifa & other SJWer groups care so much about the Confederacy now? They didn't have any problem with any of this when Obama was president. They didn't live through the oppression of the confederacy. You would think having a black president would have been the best time to bring this all up. He would certainly be very sympathetic to this and be in a position to do the most about it, right?

Why now? Who is going to benefit most from this shirt storm? The white supremists recruiting for sure. I don't think that's what the alt- left had in mind.

 

[Adder4321]

Answer me this, why does BLM, Antifa & other SJWer groups care so much about the Confederacy now? They didn't have any problem with any of this when Obama was president. They didn't live through the oppression of the confederacy. You would think having a black president would have been the best time to bring this all up. He would certainly be very sympathetic to this and be in a position to do the most about it, right?

Why now? Who is going to benefit most from this shirt storm? The white supremists recruiting for sure. I don't think that's what the alt- left had in mind.

I completely agree with you, though I don't even live in America, so I don't know much outside of what I read here. The truth is that as long as any group holds grudges from decades and generations past, discrimination will continue to exist and grow.

 

[sr71plt]

Answer me this, why does BLM, Antifa & other SJWer groups care so much about the Confederacy now? They didn't have any problem with any of this when Obama was president. They didn't live through the oppression of the confederacy. You would think having a black president would have been the best time to bring this all up. He would certainly be very sympathetic to this and be in a position to do the most about it, right?

Why now? Who is going to benefit most from this shirt storm? The white supremists recruiting for sure. I don't think that's what the alt- left had in mind.

I can't believe that you can't figure that one out. They didn't have a racist president fomenting KKK-type action then. They're naturally scared and defensive. They have every reason to be. And "now" isn't just because of those you mention. The KKK-types have been emboldened by a racist, divisive president to come out of their hidey holes.

 

[coachdb18]

Answer me this, why does BLM, Antifa & other SJWer groups care so much about the Confederacy now? They didn't have any problem with any of this when Obama was president. They didn't live through the oppression of the confederacy. You would think having a black president would have been the best time to bring this all up. He would certainly be very sympathetic to this and be in a position to do the most about it, right?

Why now? Who is going to benefit most from this shirt storm? The white supremists recruiting for sure. I don't think that's what the alt- left had in mind.

Timing... both now and then... is telling. The outcry against Confederate war memorials is politically motivated and convenient because of the recent election.

The Emancipation Proclamation... taking place January 1, 1863, was years after the Civil War had begun, and not an announcement that the war would be about slavery. It was only pragmatic, as a desperation move to save the Federal government of the north from defeat, as early on all the battles were being won by the Confederacy.

 

[coachdb18]

I can't believe that you can't figure that one out. They didn't have a racist president fomenting KKK-type action then. They're naturally scared and defensive. They have every reason to be.

The most racist President ever was FDR... look up his connection to Josephus Daniels (FDR's mentor), his Secretary of the Navy, and the man who caused the Race Riot of 1898 in Wilmington, NC, in which the Black Republican government of North Carolina was lynched, Democrats took over at gunpoint, instituted the Jim Crow laws and then empowered the KKK, the only successful government coup in the history of the United States, and held power for the next 125 years. He used the position as editor of Raleigh News and Observer (then known as the Red Rooster) to provoke the coup, for which the N&O in 2006 published a public apology.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/n...apers-apologized-for-role-in-1898-race-riots/

Time to pull down statues of FDR?

 

[hsnh]

I can't believe that you can't figure that one out. They didn't have a racist president fomenting KKK-type action then. They're naturally scared and defensive. They have every reason to be. And "now" isn't just because of those you mention. The KKK-types have been emboldened by a racist, divisive president to come out of their hidey holes.

I doubt that it was their real motivation.

Anyone could foresee that the decision would create a lot of controversy and splitting. And a rebound reaction - even more racist attitudes towards blacks, from those predisposed to that.

Timing... both now and then... is telling. The outcry against Confederate war memorials is politically motivated and convenient because of the recent election.

.

 

[sr71plt]

Do I need to point out that Galileo was pretty much alone in his belief that the Earth was indeed not flat?

One last go at you on my point, which you have refused to understand (because you don't want to) and which shows that you're the one with your head in the sand. My point is that there are hordes of historians who actively don't agree with the assertion you made. I personally don't give a shit what you think, so I'm just pointing out that you are full of crap to act like everyone agrees with you so that you can hold onto your little white supremacist views.

Historynet, for instance, doesn't agree with you. It lists "slavery" as the first reason for the Civil War, and every other cause it gives it lists as coming out of the issue of slavery ("States Rights," for instance, is a cause, but the main reason the southern states wanted that and the northern states didn't want them to have that was attached to the issue of slavery). And the causes Historynet gives don't date the issue to 1863, as you nonsensically do--it goes back to the 1830s with the abolition movements (slavery) and the 1840s with the admittance of new states (balanced to keep the balance on slavery balanced).

http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war

I just pick one source--there are thousands of them--because it only takes one example of the views of real historians, not some red neck reactionary, to make your flat claim that slavery wasn't a reason for the Civil War, as if everyone agrees with you, a sham.

Now, trot off an believe whatever your white nationalist little mind wants to believe.

 

[sr71plt]

I doubt that it was their real motivation.

Why of course that's what you want to doubt.

 

[coachdb18]

One last go at you on my point, which you have refused to understand (because you don't want to) and which shows that you're the one with your head in the sand. My point is that there are hordes of historians who actively don't agree with the assertion you made. I personally don't give a shit what you think, so I'm just pointing out that you are full of crap to act like everyone agrees with you so that you can hold onto your little white supremacist views.

Historynet, for instance, doesn't agree with you. It lists "slavery" as the first reason for the Civil War, and every other cause it gives it lists as coming out of the issue of slavery ("States Rights," for instance, is a cause, but the main reason the southern states wanted that and the northern states didn't want them to have that was attached to the issue of slavery). And the causes Historynet gives don't date the issue to 1863, as you nonsensically do--it goes back to the 1830s with the abolition movements (slavery) and the 1840s with the admittance of new states (balanced to keep the balance on slavery balanced).

http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war

I just pick one source--there are thousands of them--because it only takes one example of the views of real historians, not some red neck reactionary, to make your flat claim that slavery wasn't a reason for the Civil War, as if everyone agrees with you, a sham.

Now, trot off an believe whatever your white nationalist little mind wants to believe.

You spout talking points as if you actually thought of them, which is probably due to many rehearsals in public school. Not that it matters, but your mind is filled with the mush from the re-education camps of public education provided, and you now no longer question it. That's a shame. But I think it's time to stop trying to point you to the evidence... Helen Keller had a better chance than you do! *IGNORE*

 

[snugglestruggle]

I can't believe that you can't figure that one out. They didn't have a racist president fomenting KKK-type action then. They're naturally scared and defensive. They have every reason to be. And "now" isn't just because of those you mention. The KKK-types have been emboldened by a racist, divisive president to come out of their hidey holes.

So your answer is President Trump is the KKK bogeyman and the alt left are scary cats? Lmao.

Look, the statues were still there, monuments, parks named after confederates, buildings, streets. They weren't an issue when Obama was president.


Ok lets suppose for the sake of discussion your explanation is true, it doesn't explain why they passed up the opportunity to have President Obama, a black man try to do something about the issue. Are the alt left worried now that Trump is president the statues will magically come to life and murder blacks in their sleep?

 

[sr71plt]

Look, the statues were still there, monuments, parks named after confederates, buildings, streets. They weren't an issue when Obama was president.

I can't help your reading comprehension problem. I directly answered that already. It's fine with me if you want to believe something else. You're the one being a Trump Dope impotently on an erotica discussion board.

 

[phrodeau]

I agree with that part. I think that groups like KKK or neo- nazis, or certain Islamic groups from EU that preach "death to jews" should be labelled as hate groups and banned. Like they did in Germany.
-- I was mainly making fun of some of the things that I've seen on twitter and the GB.

____________________________

Re the events:.
The bottomline is clear, from what I understand: those are statues of people who were For slavery, so at one point they have to go.

But what is confusing to me is:
- So americans erected or allowed those statues to exist for so many decades, and until this year, not that many were bothered by them.
- Yet all of a sudden, those statues are such a sore spot and tearing them down Asap is seen as being almost vital, and anyone who's reluctant to do so is ostracized. After decades of complacency and silence.

It's confusing because it's wrong. There has been opposition to the statues from day one, but there were and are other battles to be fought.

We're providing space and maintenance in order to appease an enemy. It's not the most egregious example of government waste, but it's one that can be easily eliminated.