• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confederate Monuments: Taken Down or Leave it Up?

Should these monuments be taken down?

  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .


Robert E. Lee spent 17 years in grade as captain and he had the nick "King of Spades" due to his consistent command of ditch digging for ramparts and fortress walls from New York to the Mississippi for many and long years.

As one of the Confederate commanders Lee had success with some hit and run attacks but too many of his campaigns were disasters from the first one into West Virginia through to Gettysburg. It was only after Gettysburg that Lee wuz officially designated General in Chief of the Confederate States Army, more than anything else to brass him up as he continued to be run out of place after place.

CinC Lee met his Waterloo at Petersburg when he was beseiged by a competent and aggressive commander in General Ulysses S. Grant who finally broke Lee by the end of January 1865. The two met personally a few months later at Appomattox Virginia which is where General Grant found himself with two swords -- his own and the sword of General Robert E. Lee.

Your boy Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson of the Confederacy had the career nick of Tom Fool. Stonewall wuz shot by his own men in what came to be called "friendly fire." Pickett's Charge went on without Pickett who knowing better than to obey an order by Lee stayed back in the trees while his men were cut down during the one mile long attack across the open field.

Potus Lincoln and CinC General Winfield Scott had offered Lee command of the Union forces chiefly because it would have been a political coup against the embryonic Confederacy. The Custis-Lee family were known by Washington society and inside its circles of power. Getting Lee out of Virginia and away from the Confederacy was a smart move to attempt.

It was the case regardless that with the power and might of the Union industrial states at his command Lee could have succeeded as Union CinC. It would have been tough for Lee to have been any worse than McClellan or Halleck or Buell who among others were students of French fortifications, hence the "Do Nothing" tag applied to them during the first year of the war when they were in their naturally passive mode of command. These and other generals like 'em wanted to win without destroying Southern property -- not too much of it anyway. (We see the influence up to the present.)

Lincoln finally caught on that he needed attack generals who bite so he quickly advanced brass such as Sherman, Meade, Grant, Sheridan and a slew of other heavy hitters, shakers and fast movers. Admiral David Farragut who tied himself high onto his ship mast to command attacks routed the Confederate navy. Farragut cleared out the Mississippi starting at Mobile then New Orleans and upstream. He and Grant complemented one another by working a series of successes, Vicksburg most notably.

Given that Lee was anyway both timid and less than competent in campaign warfare, one of these generals would very likely have aced out Lee for the top spot. As it was, when Grant went after Lee in 1864 not only did Grant defeat Lee, Grant broke him. Gen. Meade hammered Lee at Gettysburg but Grant ended Lee at Petersburg. When Lee and his army fled Petersburg going west and away from Richmond and the Confederate main forces everyone knew Lee no longer knew up from down nevermind east from west. Game over.

Lee was a frail man. Grant was in contrast a bear of a man.
 

Those General led their men to their deaths as surely as a concentration camp commandant did. We don't see statues of them and we don't need to see statues of Confederates Generals either or name our counties after them. That goes for Union Generals too as far a I am concerned. The entire Civil war was one big clusterf*** and should be remembered as such. Just another example of the folly of man and the horror of war.
 



I predict that 50 years or so from now,after massive demographic change hits full force,you won't see Confederate flags or monuments to Confederate heroes displayed on government property anywhere in the USA.

Wait and see.
 
Absentglare said:
No, they didn't. It wasn't the right to secede, it was the "right" to ignore human rights. See, this is why we can't have confederate monuments, some people can't be trusted to be honest.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to read VanceMack's post #28? Can you explain some of the history that he related? Do you think that maybe you're only relating part of the story? That there was far more going on during the civil war than simply pro-slavery vs anti-slavery forces?

[directed at no one in particular...]

One of the many excuses as to why monuments to Washington should be allowed while monuments to Confederates shouldn't be allowed is that Washington won his war while the Confederates lost theirs. We don't put up monuments to people of other countries in which we have defeated them after all right? (paraphrasing) The way I see it, yeah we don't. But then why would we? They're not American's. Whereas those in the Confederate Army were American's.

The Civil War is often referred to as a war between brother and brother (among other variations). For good reasons. There were literally brothers fighting against each other in that war. But the other reason is that it was American's fighting against other American's. I don't think that many today understand what that actually means. To see other American's as brothers. Sisters. Family. Today, everything is polarized and there is no sense of family. I find that kind of sad.
 



They were rebels fighting against the loyal Americans in the Union Army.

The South lost and it will not rise again.Wait and see.

Anyone who likes Confederate monuments should build one on their property.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
They were rebels fighting against the loyal Americans in the Union Army.
Click to expand...

The reasons for fighting in the Civil War is far more varied than that. Too much use of Occam's Razor can be a bad thing ya know.

shrubnose said:
The South lost and it will not rise again.Wait and see.
Click to expand...

Not only irrelevant but pointless statements do nothing to advance discussion.

I'll note that you didn't even attempt to address what I said in my post. Which is fine. I understand that its hard to put oneself in someone else's shoes for lots of people.
 



Come back and tell us all about it 50 years from now.

:lol:
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'll more than likely be dead in half that time so sorry, won't be around for that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I hope that you're still on the green side of the grass then.

In any case I doubt that we'll see any Confederate flags or memorials on government property 50 years from now.

Putting them there gives some racists the idea that they have government support.
 
ObamacareFail said:
To be fair, 90% of the confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Only wealthy aristrocrats did. And while it was on the way out, slavery still existed at some level in the north.
Click to expand...

Slavery in the north was very very rare and only existed in a few states such as NJ and we are talking about a few dozens or so at that.
 

Thanks.
.
.

Actually it has appeared to me that social justice warriors think that. Do you have anything that shows racists saying that? And please, provide actual racists as examples. Not people that are called racists simply for disagreeing with SJW's political stances.

And after that, please explain to me that if they actually have government support now a days then why is it that the KKK is such a marginalized group? Why is it that Stormfront only has 3.3 hundred thousand members world wide? And that is including all the people that signed up just to hate on them.

Back in the day, when racists actually had government support racists numbered in the 10's of millions. Now a days? What they think is irrelevant and should not be used as a pretext for tearing down something of historical importance.
 

Nonsense as my family is from the north and I do have families members that fought and one fact one died in the civil war and I see nothing wrong in honoring both sides of that conflict.

Thank god that Lee and other southern leaders did not support an ongoing guerrilla conflict and for the most part join northern leaders is healing the wounds.
 

Sorry but General Lee was in my opinion and others was the best military mind ever born on our soil and he acted with honor before, during and after the war.

I do regret that he decided that his duty was to his state and not to the union and he would had accepted the offer to lead the northern forces that Lincoln and Scott offer him.

The death toll, at least in my opinion, would had been far less on both sides if he had done so.
 

Do not forget the Alamo as the conflicted with the Mexican government of the time center on the desire of the American settlers to bring in their slaves while slavery was not allow under the laws of Mexico.

Let tear down the Alamo.
 
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
What they think isn't irrelevant to the innocent Black people who are murdered by racists like Dylann Roof.

Think about that a little bit.
Click to expand...

Since Dylan Roof didn't kill anyone because of a monument not sure what I'm supposed to think on. :shrug:

Also afaik Dylan Roof also never claimed that the government supported his actions. As such why are you using him as an example for reasons that Confederate monuments "gives some racists the idea that they have government support"?
 

pretending to care more than the right is an attempt to seize politically correct high ground by the faux indignant types
 
ObamacareFail said:
To be fair, 90% of the confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Only wealthy aristrocrats did. And while it was on the way out, slavery still existed at some level in the north.
Click to expand...

That's false, sorry.

1860 Census Results

In Mississippi 49% of all families owned at least one slave. SC 46%. Georgia 37%. Alabama 35%. Florida 34%. NC and TX 28%.

And there were 0 slaves in most of the NE. DE 3%, and MD 12%. Every other state 0.00%.
 

It's just not true. You can read the southern states own words about why they seceded if you want. Mississippi said it the clearest. Starting from the beginning:


Doesn't get any clearer than that. The rest was and still is window dressing, and Lost Cause nonsense.

Lincoln was elected and the South seceded before he was even inaugurated. Why was his election the spark? His position on secession? Tariffs? Hell no - it was his and the Republican party's position on slavery.
 

You'll need to cite this. Blacks were prohibited from combat roles until the last few weeks of the war, so any numbers of them as combat troops as trivial in the big picture. I doubt if any were paid anything except food, because they were still SLAVES. Many of them at that time wrote they fought because they had no choice, being slaves this was their fate.


It's possible they stayed in the South because trying to go north meant they'd be hunted and killed by Southerners as runaway slaves and traitors.


It's possible about York and Forrest but E. Tn was mostly union - not much need for slaves in the mountains - while W. TN, aligned with the Confederacy.
 

On it very face that seem to be complete nonsense and surely need to be check out by going to the 1860 source censor material.

The price of one slave in the 1860s was over a thousand dollars or roughly the yearly wage of a skill blacksmith.

In other word one slave would be one hell of an expense item for a family to own.
 

Whataboutism "I dismiss your opinion on X because of your opinion on Y that I made up!" isn't much of an argument.

Besides, a lot of the opposition to the Confederate flag (aka the banner of white supremacists) and the monuments in NO comes from blacks. You don't think they care about that stuff? And what are we who oppose a GOVERNMENT flying a banner to white supremacists supposed to say about the "ongoing genocide" or "the social ills..." to make you happy?
 

Here's an article that explains how the data were compiled. Unfortunately the UVA source material is no longer online.

https://deadconfederates.com/2011/0...xas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

But I've looked and can't find any other BETTER data that answer the question - what percentage of households owned a slave? You can't use "slaveowners" because that's invariably going to be the male head of the household, and a family with a wife and kids, grown or not, with a slave is a better measure of the extent of slavery than knowing that the male head owned one or more slaves.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be deceptive, so if you search and find different results, please cite what you find.
 
Do I think they care about it? Yes...because people have made it a 'cause'. Does it matter? Not a tiny ****ing bit. In every city and every community where the black community is literally dying, you know what you WONT find flown by those doing the destruction? A Confederate flag. What has happened is a bunch of people have for political gain shrieked THATS RACIST! And everyone else has followed suit. Now...let me save you the trouble. Your next comment will be "SO you are saying black people dont think for themselves?" To which I will respond, politically? In the sake and name of causes? Hands up dont shoot. Black Lives Matter. 80% voting as a bloc for the rat party since the 30s (approx average). Fractional political diversity. No...they think as a collective politically. History has proven it. So does the obsession over the confederate flag while they ignore the blood in the streets daily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…