Tear down Confederate War Memorials
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
Let me guess, they're all Republicans, but wasn't it the Democrat party that was responsible for slavery?
We rarely agree but when we do, we do.
Yes, quite. And while we agree that the Democrat Party is responsible for slavery, as a conservative Republican you should agree that tearing down monuments to the institution of slavery is the right thing to do, oui?
I see your arguments but confederate monuments have zero to do with slavery. The monuments are those peoples history, a remembrance of fallen dead.
I will always believe that Lincoln and his genius made the war about slavery helped bring it’s disgusting practice to an end. But the monuments were built to remember loved ones lost and the struggle that was.
I certainly appreciate the argument for the destruction of slavery and it’s memories but that is not why they exist.
As rare as we agree on something, I agree with your post.
Only the wealthy southerners owned slaves and the war was fought by the common man and slave ownership was far beyond their means.
The common southern man fought under the idea that the Federalists were an invading army that was after the destruction of their farms and families.
The motivation of the Federalists was to keep the Union intact, Lincoln himself was quoted as saying he would not abolish slavery to preserve the Union if that is what it took so the motivation for the common northern soldier was not the end of slavery.
Lincoln being a man who thought of the practice of slavery to be disgusting only issued the Emancipation Proclamation later in the war even though he always wished it to be gone.
So to place the focus of slavery as the only reason the war took place and the single motivation of the struggle is to ignore the larger history.
I believe that Lincoln had always wanted the end of the practice and was smart enough to steer history to it label the war to end slavery because in the end in the end 620,000 US soldiers between both sides were ****** and without a greater meaning for future generations to hold up it would always be looked at as worthless slaughter.
I have zero doubt that Jefferson Davis and his wealthy counterparts listed Slavery as a main cause in their minds but I'm talking about the meat and potatoes people who did the actual fighting/dying in my mind they count so much more than the entitled wealthy pricks at the top.
Basically what you're saying is that the poor, unwashed masses of The South were manipulated into doing the bidding of the wealthy elite by exploiting their patriotism and faith in God? Sounds a lot like their descendants in the Trump Nut Suck fake-ass conservative Republican party of contemporary times.
:eek:
Because the unwashed masses of the North haven't been brainwashed back then? A country lead by stateless and socialist people such as Beta O'Rourke or Commie Cortez who have no god or no religion are the example to follow? I don't think so, people are conservative for a lot of good reasons, they don't want their country turning into another Venezuela or 1/3rd world socialist country with medicore or/and non existentvalues. Nothing wrong with patriotism and praising God.
Last edited:
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
My personal feeling is that symbols to a cause which was based on a rebellion against the republic should never have been supported with public funds and should never have been allowed on public lands in the first place. I'm a believer in the republican form of government. And my belief is that treason should be met with *****... Roman style. That's right. You know what I mean. Hang 'em high! :eek:
Anyway, here's a factoid that I found rather interesting.
Public symbols of the Confederacy and its leaders... Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights Movement - times of increased racial tension.
One of the most egregious examples was the monument (on public land) to a smoldering piece of treasonous *****: Nathan Bedford Forrest (first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan). In 1864, this particular "brave son of the Confederacy" led a massacre of mostly Black Union troops who had surrendered. Yeah, real honorable character, that one.
I don't agree with this recent wave of hyper political correctness, which seeks to (completely) judge the past and its people by modern standards. That's absurd. But when the people of the past fall short of the standards of decency and honor of even their own time, they damn sure shouldn't have monuments erected to them with public funds and/or placed on public lands.
I used to go to a lot of *** shows years ago. And there'd usually be a table set up by the Sons of the Confederacy, selling raffle tickets for a rifle or some such. Whether it was someone huckstering timeshares or some sort of snake oil, I always enjoyed listening to someone's spiel and toying with them a bit - call it a weird form of entertainment. What I always found funny about the Sons of the Confederacy is that when you'd talk to different ones, at different shows, they'd explain their cause as one where they were celebrating their ****** history and heritage (which is fine). And then they'd almost always go on to tell you that their great, great grandpappy was an officer with ol' Bobby Lee or Stonewall Jackson. I'd always think, "Well hell, no wonder they lost. All of their men were officers and they all were under the command of just two generals.
Poor delusional bastards, I'd think to myself.
Anyway, here's a factoid that I found rather interesting.
Public symbols of the Confederacy and its leaders... Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights Movement - times of increased racial tension.
One of the most egregious examples was the monument (on public land) to a smoldering piece of treasonous *****: Nathan Bedford Forrest (first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan). In 1864, this particular "brave son of the Confederacy" led a massacre of mostly Black Union troops who had surrendered. Yeah, real honorable character, that one.
I don't agree with this recent wave of hyper political correctness, which seeks to (completely) judge the past and its people by modern standards. That's absurd. But when the people of the past fall short of the standards of decency and honor of even their own time, they damn sure shouldn't have monuments erected to them with public funds and/or placed on public lands.
I used to go to a lot of *** shows years ago. And there'd usually be a table set up by the Sons of the Confederacy, selling raffle tickets for a rifle or some such. Whether it was someone huckstering timeshares or some sort of snake oil, I always enjoyed listening to someone's spiel and toying with them a bit - call it a weird form of entertainment. What I always found funny about the Sons of the Confederacy is that when you'd talk to different ones, at different shows, they'd explain their cause as one where they were celebrating their ****** history and heritage (which is fine). And then they'd almost always go on to tell you that their great, great grandpappy was an officer with ol' Bobby Lee or Stonewall Jackson. I'd always think, "Well hell, no wonder they lost. All of their men were officers and they all were under the command of just two generals.
Poor delusional bastards, I'd think to myself.
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Will Anita Hill be incorporated? SCOTUS judges aren't immune to eventually getting removed: Baltimore took down their Taney memorial a few years ago.
Robert E Lee was not a fan of monuments to the Confederacy. Writing in 1866:
"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."
Premium Link Upgrade
I'm curious, did they ever float the idea of a "grandfather clause"? For example, stating that monuments created before the Jim Crow era or the Civil Rights Movement (or whatever date is acceptable) would be exempt since they would be legit historical memorials and not a political statement? Plus, the older a monument is, the greater the historical value.
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
It is the great-great-great grandfather clause.
The Reconstruction Era was hardly a utopia. In many ways it was the same as Jim Crow, but not yet codified. It is how the monument is received, not its intent which matters. You would have a tough time making the historical argument to some people. It is political now.
The Reconstruction Era was hardly a utopia. In many ways it was the same as Jim Crow, but not yet codified. It is how the monument is received, not its intent which matters. You would have a tough time making the historical argument to some people. It is political now.
Everything is political, and every monument to a person sure is hell is political, and always has been.
About your statement, Hmm..In that case they can be tossed in the old moldy back corner of a museum somewhere with signs that also explain the history of just how much of big of a piece of **** those people are instead of just having the statues destroyed. That sounds more than fair, and hopefully would be even more disgraceful to them than having their monuments destroyed.
