What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

[RobDownSouth]

If you were there it's because you were a dumb SOB and couldn't think for yourself. I'll say it again to be clear, the JBS was not a racist organization. That is not to say that somebody who was didn't show up in one or more of their meetings like a whore in church.

Just how much Agent Orange DID you eat in the 'Nam?

 

[Emerson40]

http://68.media.tumblr.com/3f9a3e728ecf0a05e6436830e550af51/tumblr_ouzwob1mLk1qa6pslo1_500.jpg



Please listen to this as you read: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmxZThb084



My dearest Katherine,

We were ambushed by the cucks last night, but Lt. Kekfucker1488 rallied us and we drove them back. I can scarcely remember a time before this war. I am plagued by terrible nightmares of my childhood ruined by women in science fiction movies. Some say Crooked Hillary will soon offer her surrender since it was revealed she operates a labyrinth of child sex dungeons beneath the nation’s pizzerias, but my hopes have failed me before. I no longer wish for medals or glory, only for the joy of posting my evo psych theories to Reddit. How I wish I were home with you, even though you are an anime body pillow and cannot read this.

Forever yours,

Jews_did_911


SOURCE

 

[adrina]

Made up social crusades.

Like wanting to end abortion - legal and not.

Like squealing about the non-existent war on Christmas because someone has the nerve to say happy holidays.

Like voter suppression specifically aimed at racial groups.

Like an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Like allowing discrimination based on religion.

Yes there are several made up social crusades that are utter bullshit.

 

[Rightguide]

Made up social crusades.

Like wanting to end abortion - legal and not.

Like squealing about the non-existent war on Christmas because someone has the nerve to say happy holidays.

Like voter suppression specifically aimed at racial groups.

Like an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Like allowing discrimination based on religion.

Yes there are several made up social crusades that are utter bullshit.

Bullshit. Prove it. Prove it was race-based.

 

[adrina]

1

2

3

4

Just off the top of Google.

 

[coachdb18]

In Houston street names and buildings with names of anyone associated with the confederacy have come under attack. Prior to this it was school athletic team names such as redskins or Indians.

Progressive should only be used to describe cancer, as in a 'progressive disease', not to justify or describe the defective associations one may have with ones rogue political ambitions.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Progressive should only be used to describe cancer, as in a 'progressive disease', not to justify or describe the defective associations one may have with ones rogue political ambitions.

^^^Snowflake is especially butthurt today. Mean old progressive are kicking his ass. Perhaps the #BroCavalry show up to succor him.

 

[TalkRadio]

1

2

3

4

Just off the top of Google.

An interesting passage from link #2...

The state, for example, did not simply enact a voter ID provision — a common method of voter suppression — but also “amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans,” while simultaneously retaining “only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.”
https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-voter-law-dead-6dc027569681/

Obama requires photo id's to attend his rally...

At a recent Obama rally in Ohio, prospective attendees were told to brandish their photo IDs if they expected admittance to the rally. No word yet on whether Attorney General Eric Holder plans to file suit against the Obama campaign for infringing upon Ohioans’ right of peaceful assembly by way of a racist photo ID rule.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/23/call-holder-obama-demands-ids-for-rally-entrance/

 

[adrina]

B-b-but Obama!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

source

As long as we continue to perpetuate the myth of Confederate innocence—the idea that good men on both sides fought over distant abstractions and then came together again in brotherhood—we continue to lie to ourselves.

In Germany, you won’t see neo-Nazis converging on a monument to Reinhard Heydrich or Adolf Hitler, because no such statues exist. The country long ago came to grips with the full weight of its history. But you’ll find Nazis and Klansmen in Virginia, circling a statue of Robert E. Lee, a traitor who raised arms against his own country in the defense of white supremacy.

How do we explain to the descendants of his victims—fallen Union soldiers and widows, and so many million slaves—that Robert E. Lee doesn’t deserve the same eternal infamy as Eichmann or Heydrich?

Just how much Agent Orange DID you eat in the 'Nam?

Speaking of which, what the fuck is this doing desecrating the landscape? Shall each Vietnam veteran whether conscript or volunteer (or only the volunteers) be held responsible for the bankrupt foreign policy that resulted in over 50,000 American deaths and millions more of Vietnamese? I remember fighting this social battle for much of my adult life, and it took me far too long to realize that Vietnam veterans were fully entitled to my respect and support rather than my categorical disapproval or callous neglect. "Baby killers," indeed. What a bunch of crap.

What do we do when someone is inspired to memorialize the American military sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan?

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2010/07/08/1278642872_0933/539w.jpg

To equate Southern secession and the Civil War with Nazi genocide ignores TWO major salient points -- slavery in the United States was, and had been since the country's inception, LEGAL, notwithstanding the contentiousness of the issue during the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The fact that the social and moral debate hardly tempered in the ensuing decades would nonetheless do little to persuade Southern states that they were not entitled to what had been previously agreed to.

Secondly and concurrently, the notion of "states rights" had far more to do with sentiments surrounding "Federalism" and "Anti-federalism" than it represented a euphemism for the "right" of slavery as a state institution. Prior to and through the Civil War was a time when the 10th Amendment still meant something of substance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since a handful of the original 13 states made it abundantly clear they would not JOIN the union without being permitted to hold slaves, it is hardly surprising that they would exercise their LEGAL OPTION to LEAVE the union if that permission was threatened or disrespected by other Northern states or the federal government, particularly since there was NO LAW, Supreme Court ruling (prior to 1869) or Constitutional language prohibiting secession.

And once again considering the tenor of the times, it is hardly surprising that individual citizens considered their dutiful loyalty to their states as being preeminent over the federal government, and if a case for the legality of secession can be made, it removes the stain of treason from either the collective or individual allegiances of those same citizens.

NONE OF THE ABOVE excuses or mitigates the putrid ugliness of racism or the immorality of slavery.

But it sure as hell delegitimizes any comparison of the Confederacy to Nazi Germany.

 

[Que]

More or less correct but remember the South wanted to secede irregardless of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until after the war of Northern aggression was illegally started by that original racist Republican, Lincoln.

The modern revisionist idea that the war was fought over slavery is nonsense. After the war was concluded slavery was still legal in the states that had not seceded but were slave states.

The motivation for the war between the States was the same as the upcoming one; the red States versus the populist blue States. Having more bodies crammed into your city should not give you more power over your less populous neighbors.

As you pointed out in another post the allegiance was not to the United States. Accusations of traitor and treason is nonsense. Their allegience was to their individual, sovereign states.

Interesting that the same people that don't like the revisionist In God We Trust have no problem with "one nation indivisible."

They were not citizens of the United States they were citizens of their individual, soverien States, the States were members of the union.

I've pointed it out but if the European Union took up arms against Great Britain to prevent brexit this would not be a "civil war," but a war of conquest and submission.

Ths war was no different than that.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

More or less correct but remember the South wanted to secede irregardless of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until after the war of Northern aggression was illegally started by that original racist Republican, Lincoln.

Well, you suck at 19th century American history just as much as you suck at logic and terminology.

 

[Que]

Well, you suck at 19th century American history just as much as you suck at logic and terminology.

You suck at understanding how a calender works.

Lincoln started this war with economic warfare. First shots fired to remove the illegal US occupation from a soveriegn state in April of 1861. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January of 1863, and it only was inclusive of the (quite legally) seceding States.

Tell me: would the EU be morally or legally justified in keeping GB in that union through force of arms? Can they maintain a blockade of Britain? Man a fort just off shore within the territorial waters of GB?

 

[coachdb18]

Well, you suck at 19th century American history just as much as you suck at logic and terminology.

Que's right, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. It's an easy enough fact to look up, and also a fact that the North was losing the war up to that point. It was a matter of changing the course of the war by largely changing the narrative of the cause for it. You might look up Lincoln's first inaugural address, in which he clearly stated he had no intention of interfering in state laws, said he had no legal right to do so, and that the south had nothing to fear from him in that regard. That was March 4, 1861.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

 

[Colonel Hogan]

More or less correct but remember the South wanted to secede irregardless of slavery.

Bullshit. Please make that case. The RIGHT to secede does not constitute the REASON to secede. So if it wasn't slavery, what was it?

I made MY case previously in this thread with this post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=87669526&postcount=82

I cited specific "Declaration(s) of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession."

I have to assume that if your allegation is correct, there is ample and quite specific documentation as to alternate reasons for secession as indisputably articulated by the secessionists themselves.

Please give me those statements rather than an inference from the Missouri Compromise.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You suck at understanding how a calender works.

Lincoln started this war with economic warfare. First shots fired to remove the illegal US occupation from a soveriegn state in April of 1861. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January of 1863, and it only was inclusive of the (quite legally) seceding States.

Tell me: would the EU be morally or legally justified in keeping GB in that union through force of arms? Can they maintain a blockade of Britain? Man a fort just off shore within the territorial waters of GB?

Que's right, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. It's an easy enough fact to look up, and also a fact that the North was losing the war up to that point. It was a matter of changing the course of the war by largely changing the narrative of the cause for it. You might look up Lincoln's first inaugural address, in which he clearly stated he had no intention of interfering in state laws, said he had no legal right to do so, and that the south had nothing to fear from him in that regard. That was March 4, 1861.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Jesus, fuck.

The South fought the war to preserve slavery.

Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, irregardless of the institution of slavery.

Individual Northerners probably fought the war BOTH to preserve the Union AND to end slavery. Who knows?

But to impose the respective motivations on the opposing side is a simple blatant distortion of history. We have the STATEMENTS of the participants. They aren't entitled to speak for each other.

I can make a pretty good argument that Southern states had every RIGHT to secede and that the North had absolutely NO RIGHT to prevent them from doing so. But that argument would not have one damn thing to do with the underlying philosophy of WHY each side did what it did, nor would it contain any moral foundation for the insidious violation of humanity that is the very essence of slavery, for fucks sakes.

Let's keep this shit straight.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

You suck at understanding how a calender works.

Lincoln started this war with economic warfare. First shots fired to remove the illegal US occupation from a soveriegn state in April of 1861. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January of 1863, and it only was inclusive of the (quite legally) seceding States.

Tell me: would the EU be morally or legally justified in keeping GB in that union through force of arms? Can they maintain a blockade of Britain? Man a fort just off shore within the territorial waters of GB?

Oh I see, you redefine terms until your preferred narrative (the North under Lincoln started the war) conforms to reality.

By the way, the notion that the South would have chosen to secede "irregardless" of slavery is a notion historians would find laughable.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Que's right, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. It's an easy enough fact to look up, and also a fact that the North was losing the war up to that point. It was a matter of changing the course of the war by largely changing the narrative of the cause for it. You might look up Lincoln's first inaugural address, in which he clearly stated he had no intention of interfering in state laws, said he had no legal right to do so, and that the south had nothing to fear from him in that regard. That was March 4, 1861.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

STFU, dumb dumb.

 

[Que]

Que's right, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. It's an easy enough fact to look up, and also a fact that the North was losing the war up to that point. It was a matter of changing the course of the war by largely changing the narrative of the cause for it. You might look up Lincoln's first inaugural address, in which he clearly stated he had no intention of interfering in state laws, said he had no legal right to do so, and that the south had nothing to fear from him in that regard. That was March 4, 1861.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

nothing has changed in the last 150 years they're constantly rewriting history that's what they do. Charlottesville you got one guy committing violence which ended it a tragic death and they're painting the illegal assembly of a large mass of carpetbaggers bent on shutting down a rally through provoking violence as being "peaceful demonstrators"

Remove the one and only violent act from the right (a schizophrenic surrounded by masked agitators pounding on his car with clubs) and they would be excusing the lopsided violence as "justified" -because they are "fighting evil."

They have no answer for all of the previous times that antifa showed up and either intimated or engaged in violence.

 

[coachdb18]

Bullshit. Please make that case. The RIGHT to secede does not constitute the REASON to secede. So if it wasn't slavery, what was it?

I made MY case previously in this thread with this post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=87669526&postcount=82

I cited specific "Declaration(s) of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession."

I have to assume that if your allegation is correct, there is ample and quite specific documentation as to alternate reasons for secession as indisputably articulated by the secessionists themselves.

Please give me those statements rather than an inference from the Missouri Compromise.

At that time, it was a little like the movie 'Bridge of Spies' and the negotiations for U2 pilot Gary Powers... the US didn't recognize East Germany, and the Russians and East Germans had just fought WWII, so they didn't like each other either... lots of 'reasons' that didn't really spell out all the REAL reasons for spy vs spy... so it was during the time of the Civil War. Was the cause slavery? It was the principle reason, but the principal reason for the south being pissed was that the slaves were considered property, and it was by making them 'non-property' that the north took a bigger piece of the economic pie, and political clout over the south.

 

[Que]

Jesus, fuck.

The South fought the war to preserve slavery.

Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, irregardless of the institution of slavery.

Individual Northerners probably fought the war BOTH to preserve the Union AND to end slavery. Who knows?

But to impose the respective motivations on the opposing side is a simple blatant distortion of history. We have the STATEMENTS of the participants. They aren't entitled to speak for each other.

Lincoln specifically indicated that state laws were not subject to his usurpation. The South still seceded.

No soldiers in the North (including my ancestors who joined the Union for the uniform allowance) were under the impression that successful prosecution of the war would result in the abolition of slavery.

My ancesters were anti-slavery, and were run out of Missouri for it, but the civil war was not designed to free slaves. As I said, slaves were not free at the end of the war.

Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky were surviving slave states after the war.

 

[Que]

I think most of those is livelyhoods were based on the model of slavery were highly suspicious of Lincolns assurances. Importation of slaves was already illegal.

It was their centuries version of "If you like your insurance in your doctor you can keep 'em."

 

[MGurkus]

More or less correct but remember the South wanted to secede irregardless of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until after the war of Northern aggression was illegally started by that original racist Republican, Lincoln.

The modern revisionist idea that the war was fought over slavery is nonsense. After the war was concluded slavery was still legal in the states that had not seceded but were slave states.

The motivation for the war between the States was the same as the upcoming one; the red States versus the populist blue States. Having more bodies crammed into your city should not give you more power over your less populous neighbors.

As you pointed out in another post the allegiance was not to the United States. Accusations of traitor and treason is nonsense. Their allegience was to their individual, sovereign states.

Interesting that the same people that don't like the revisionist In God We Trust have no problem with "one nation indivisible."

They were not citizens of the United States they were citizens of their individual, soverien States, the States were members of the union.

I've pointed it out but if the European Union took up arms against Great Britain to prevent brexit this would not be a "civil war," but a war of conquest and submission.

Ths war was no different than that.

Holy fuck! It's no wonder your family ditched you, you're a complete idiot!

 

[coachdb18]

I think most of those is livelyhoods were based on the model of slavery were highly suspicious of Lincolns assurances. Importation of slaves was already illegal.

It was their centuries version of "If you like your insurance in your doctor you can keep 'em."

The economic war taking place between north and south predates the first shot being fired, going back to the debates taking place over the Articles of Confederation. The north went to great lengths to make sure their industrial might meant more politically than the southern agricultural power, and the inclusion of slaves as property was key to the wealth of the region. By trying to strip the south of the economic value of slaves held, the economic battle raging was the REAL cause of the war. The fact slavery was the centerpiece over which pawn was pushed is what's missed to this day.

 

[jaF0]

I'll always say it would have been better to let them secede than waste so many lives on both sides, often from the same families. I don't think it would have been too many years before some reunification.