ADVERTISEMENT

I’m conservative and could care less if confederate statues/flags remain

While Slavery was definitely not the sole reason for secession (others can argue those details), Slavery was absolutely a part of it, and that can’t be ignored.

Here’s the declaration of secession from SC, the first state to secede. It directly addresses Slavery issues as a reason for secession.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dec...sion_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union
“The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.”
I'm talking more about specific people/generals involved on both sides..the Union was not without sin either btw. Everyone just wants to put some Disney version of hero vs villain on the Civil War and it was MUCH more complicated than that, that's all I was pointing to with my comments above.
 
Well you should care. ANY elimination of history is a tragedy. The problem is, once they get that, they will move on to the next thing. The PC police is a scary thing. Brings 1984 to life, by altering or eliminating history. The Confederacy happened. Don't eliminate it. "LEARN" from it.

DO NOT DESTROY HISTORY.
It’s Just really really not important to glorify a failed rebellion. Teach about it? Sure. Display artifacts from it in museums? Absolutely.

But why does what was once the “confederacy” need monuments? Removing the statues isn’t removing history, it’s removing the glorification of what’s really a genital wart on the penis of America.
 
I think that political bickering is semi-idiotic, and I stupidly interact in this bickering at times. No one through argument changes another’s mind. So why should you care how I vote or vice versa? Why do some think they should have the liberty to tell others how to live their lives, unless it comes to infringing on rights or property?

The bottom line should be to live peacefully and make sure people have equal opportunity for success, where hard work matters.

Beyond that it’s just a noise industry where agendas drive narratives. In other words non-fruitful bickering.

Politics were never meant to define relationships. We were meant to look out for one another, or to love others. Love can conquer many divisions.
I think some look at it as if you start to give an inch with this mob, they will take a mile. At some point a line as to be drawn. They will never be satisfied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricedp105
Everyone just wants to put some Disney version of hero vs villain on the Civil War and it was MUCH more complicated than that, that's all I was pointing to with my comments above.
It's REALLY NOT. One side wanted to own people. The other side wanted to stop that. Everything else is just details.
 
I think some look at it as if you start to give an inch with this mob, they will take a mile. At some point a line as to be drawn. They will never be satisfied.
Well I think the place to draw that line is not at "We would like to keep the statues up of an enemy of the United States that fought to keep your ancestors enslaved". It's somewhere farther back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thrill
Okay. Why?
Because both sides were greedy and wanted to own more property/territory, slavery was a factor in the war but there were other factors/disputes involved as well that even without slavery would have still started a Civil War. Read up on them, this is exactly what I'm talking about here with the Disney version of good vs evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aueku
Do you think the Civil War would have been fought if the United States had allowed the south to keep their slaves, and allowed the practice of slavery to continue in future states?
Remember the freeing of the slaves was a political ploy by Lincoln that occurred after the war started. The western members of the Union Army weren't pleased about that. There are numerous accounts of soldiers from Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan expressing disgust at this. They joined to preserve the union not to free slaves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricedp105
Remember the freeing of the slaves was a political ploy by Lincoln that occurred after the war started. The western members of the Union Army weren't pleased about that. There are numerous accounts of soldiers from Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan expressing disgust at this. They joined to preserve the union not to free slaves.
And there it is...thank you.
 
Because both sides were greedy and wanted to own more property/territory, slavery was a factor in the war but there were other factors/disputes involved as well that even without slavery would have still started a Civil War. Read up on them, this is exactly what I'm talking about here with the Disney version of good vs evil.
No. There weren't. Slavery was the issue that they were fighting for more territory for. If there were other issues they were concerned about, please post them.

Remember the freeing of the slaves was a political ploy by Lincoln that occurred after the war started. The western members of the Union Army weren't pleased about that. There are numerous accounts of soldiers from Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan expressing disgust at this. They joined to preserve the union not to free slaves.
True, but the south seceded specifically because they were fearful that Lincoln would end the practice of slavery. It's IN THE DAMN ARTICLES OF SECESSION.

The US Govt
Oh? The US government was attacking Lee's state, friends, and family? When did that happen?
 
Taking down statues isn’t erasing history. It’s taking down symbols that glorify it.
The statue near my house is to honor the men from Illinois that died fighting on that hill. That monument is in Kennesaw GA. Should we take that down as well?
 
And there it is...thank you.
The beginning of the Civil War, or more aptly named, the War for Southern Independence, was extremely complex and was not as simple as "just over slavery." The Northern states (mainly New England yankess) who spoke highly of the Union, threatened succession in the War of 1812, because their trade was threatened. Real patriotic bunch up there. This was more about economics than anything else.
 
No. There weren't. Slavery was the issue that they were fighting for more territory for. If there were other issues they were concerned about, please post them.
Apparently you are from the north because my history teacher taught me that the war of northern aggression was fought over states rights. Now to be fair I personally don't think it was about slavery, I really do believe it was about states rights which is what the constitution was founded on. There were slaves all over the US so that was not just a southern thing. Heck when President Lincoln freed the slaves he didn't even free the ones up north that had to come later...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricedp105 and Aueku
Apparently you are from the north because my history teacher taught me that the war of northern aggression was fought over states rights. Now to be fair I personally don't think it was about slavery, I really do believe it was about states rights which is what the constitution was founded on. There were slaves all over the US so that was not just a southern thing. Heck when President Lincoln freed the slaves he didn't even free the ones up north that had to come later...
I'm from Alabama, and you had a pretty shitty teacher. It was definitely over slavery.
 
Well you should care. ANY elimination of history is a tragedy. The problem is, once they get that, they will move on to the next thing. The PC police is a scary thing. Brings 1984 to life, by altering or eliminating history. The Confederacy happened. Don't eliminate it. "LEARN" from it.

DO NOT DESTROY HISTORY.
So, not that anyone cares, but I've been thinking about this confederate statue and confederate naming thing and it finally struck me that it is freaking insane to have statues and monuments and schools named after people who tried to tear the country apart. I mean, they were literally attempting to destroy the United States of America and yet for the last 150 years there are pockets where they have been celebrated. These people led a revolution and lost and yet they still have schools and military bases named after them. Seems pretty ridiculous.

In light of this new perspective, I fully support removing all confederate statues and naming from every single piece of federal land and am a little amazed it hasn't been done already. Now, that is not the same thing as destroying history, we can still learn about it from history books and in museums and such, but if I was an American, much less a black American, attending Robert E. Lee high school I think I should be somewhere between shocked and really freaking pissed. My two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thrill
Absolutely. The economics of being able to own people.
You don't really want to boast about northern states and their labor laws in terms of factories.

It was much more complex than that. It truly was more about States' Rights. The north didn't march off to war to free slaves, they did so to preserve the Union. Had they done that at the beginning, it is doubtful they would have had support from the western states. The abolition movement was very small when considering the size of the nation and only strong in the New England states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricedp105
No. There weren't. Slavery was the issue that they were fighting for more territory for. If there were other issues they were concerned about, please post them.


True, but the south seceded specifically because they were fearful that Lincoln would end the practice of slavery. It's IN THE DAMN ARTICLES OF SECESSION.


Oh? The US government was attacking Lee's state, friends, and family? When did that happen?
 
I share the slippery slope concerns. But, if was a descendant of slaves, I wouldn't want my city to have on public property that my taxes help maintain a statue of a person who fought for a government that saw my ancestors as chattel to be bought, sold, beaten, raped, and murdered with impunity.
So can we eliminate St Patrick's Day? I am Irish and I gotta say the way they came to us was slavery (By your definition above) as well. Many of them were treated horribly.
 
No. There weren't. Slavery was the issue that they were fighting for more territory for. If there were other issues they were concerned about, please post them.


True, but the south seceded specifically because they were fearful that Lincoln would end the practice of slavery. It's IN THE DAMN ARTICLES OF SECESSION.


Oh? The US government was attacking Lee's state, friends, and family? When did that happen?
1861
 
You don't really want to boast about northern states and their labor laws in terms of factories.

It was much more complex than that. It truly was more about States' Rights. The north didn't march off to war to free slaves, they did so to preserve the Union. Had they done that at the beginning, it is doubtful they would have had support from the western states. The abolition movement was very small when considering the size of the nation and only strong in the New England states.
The United States didn't fight initially to end slavery, but the Confederacy DEFINITELY seceded and started the war for the right to own people.
 
So can we eliminate St Patrick's Day? I am Irish and I gotta say the way they came to us was slavery (By your definition above) as well. Many of them were treated horribly.
St. Patrick was a former pirate slave who was brought to Ireland, and St. Patrick's Day is a religious and national holiday celebrating the arrival of Christianity in Ireland. Who finds it offensive (other than, perhaps, recovering alcoholics)?
 
St. Patrick was a former pirate slave who was brought to Ireland, and St. Patrick's Day is a religious and national holiday celebrating the arrival of Christianity in Ireland. Who finds it offensive (other than, perhaps, recovering alcoholics)?
Just a guess but the same type of person that finds a statue offensive. o_O
 
Specifically, was it before or after Lee turned his back on his country, and then the Confederacy started hostilities?
When Lincoln raised an Army and it was evident they intended to march through Virginia to attack the Cotton States, Lee resigned his commission.

You all are applying 20th and 21st century concepts of this Republic onto Lee and others. Back then one''s state is who one was loyal too as well as the country. A state is and was a second sovereign. More so back then than now. They say that the Civil War changed the way we viewed the United States. Before the war it was "The United States of America ARE" after the war it was "The United States of America IS" A collection of many versus one. He didn't turn his back on the United States so much as he defended his home sovereign state of Virginia.


Edit: All the states didn't secede at once. The NC and Virginia only seceded after the North made clear they were going to use an Army to force the Cotton states back into the Union.

Look it up.
 
When Lincoln raised an Army and it was evident they intended to march through Virginia to attack the Cotton States, Lee resigned his commission.

You all are applying 20th and 21st century concepts of this Republic onto Lee and others. Back then one''s state is who one was loyal too as well as the country. A state is and was a second sovereign. More so back then than now. They say that the Civil War changed the way we viewed the United States. Before the war it was "The United States of America ARE" after the war it was "The United States of America IS" A collection of many versus one. He didn't turn his back on the United States so much as he defended his home sovereign state of Virginia.
Sounds like he chose poorly. What a loser.
 
What I find ironic is that the people who want to keep the statues (and who argue that the statues are part of their heritage or honor their noble ancestors who fought to preserve state's rights) are the same people who tell black folks complaining about slavery to get over it because it ended 160 years ago. The hypocrisy seems to escape them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mackenzie
Sounds like he chose poorly. What a loser.
If you went back in time May 1863, you wouldn't have thought that. In fact, the North was tiring of the war and the high casualties. Had Lee won at Gettysburg, there are many that thought the North would have forced Lincoln to sue for peace. As it was, he didn't and the South ultimately lost a war of attrition.

Lee chose his homeland of Virginia as did a great many people who chose their states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricedp105
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT