Kentucky city mayor: Confederate statues to come down after Charlottesville

[CLAX1911]

No, it's not even remotely that.

yes it is exactly that.

The history remains unchanged. It isn't being rewritten or altered. The monuments to treason are merely being removed.

the history is often changed your attempting to do it right now. You're attempting to produce a revision where people who fought against the nation where treasonous. They weren't, they were in nation unto themselves.

Treason back then is the same as treason today.

there was no trees in the Confederate States was a nation. They weren't the Union.

 

[Evilroddy]

Let me make is absolutely plain: those who fought for the South were traitors, w/out exception. They engaged in treason. They tried to kill the family members of people who didn't engage in treason.

It's really not a very complex issue.

Tanngrisnir:

Do you know the intent of all those who fought in the Confederate cause so well that you can make this very absolute and broadly applied statement with some authority? Some of those who fought for the South did so for deploarable reasons like defending slavery but others thought that they were doing the right thing by protecting states' rights and a traditional agrarian lifestyle. They viewed the industrial North as a new empire imposing foreign political and economic values upon them without their consent, as Britain had done almost a cenrury before. They were defending a right to withdraw from a voluntary confederation which had morphed into an involuntary union in the course of eighty years. The issue of cessession was settled by blood and death during the Civil War and is no longer up for debate today; but at the time of the ACW it was not a settled issue at all and the confederate states had a fairly good case to justify their withdrawal from the USA.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You're dodging it because you know I'm right they didn't go against their Nation their nation was the Confederacy.

It's okay you can't hash it out and you're just trying to save face I get it. But you aren't fooling me. Perhaps I'm not the person you're trying to fool

I'm not dodging anything. The act of creating the Confederacy itself was treasonous, as was levying war against the US. That's simple reality and apparently that makes you uncomfy.

It's OK that you don't have a rational point to make and are now lashing out emotionally.

 

[CLAX1911]

They levied war against the United States.

as a nation called the Confederate States.

That's textbook treason, straight out of the Constitution.

only if they weren't a nation which they were called the Confederate States. So it was not textbook treason it was war.

 

[apdst]

So what? Unlike you, I neither fear history nor do I seek to whitewash it.

Don't like it? That's just too goddamned bad.

Why do you support traitors to the US?

Actually, you're supporting the erasure of history. An what history don't wish to erase you wish to morphadite into a version that is politically acceptable.

 

[BWG]

The statues and monuments to US veterans that fought under the Confederacy do not, by any means possible, represent or dignify the KKK, white nationalists, neo-Nazi's, or the Alt-Right.

What do you think your link says? If you're trying to claim that it make confederate soldiers U.S. veterans (which it seems you confirm in your posts #23 and #29) that would be wrong.


Your link is an admendment to http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/56.pdf, a law passed almost 100 years after the war. It provides pensions to Civil War veterans' widows and children. That's all! Scroll down to Sec. 432 and Sec. 433 (page 107).


It does not make them U.S. veterans

 

[Tanngrisnir]

yes it is exactly that.

I understand and accept that you're compelled to pretend that it is to protect your narrative.

the history is often changed your attempting to do it right now. You're attempting to produce a revision where people who fought against the nation where treasonous. They weren't, they were in nation unto themselves.

I'm not changing anything, but again, I understand your need to pretend that I am to distract from the fact you have no rational argument to make. They committed treason no matter how much that upsets you.

there was no trees in the Confederate States was a nation. They weren't the Union.

Yawn. Go peddle your revisionist bull**** to someone dumb enough to buy it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Tanngrisnir:

Do you know the intent of all those who fought in the Confederate cause so well that you can make this very absolute and broadly applied statement with some authority? Some of those who fought for the South did so for deploarable reasons like defending slavery but others thought that they were doing the right thing by protecting states' rights and a traditional agrarian lifestyle. They viewed the industrial North as a new empire imposing foreign political and economic values upon them without their consent, as Britain had done almost a cenrury before. They were defending a right to withdraw from a voluntary confederation which had morphed into an involuntary union in the course of eighty years. The issue of cessession was settled by blood and death during the Civil War and is no longer up for debate today; but at the time of the ACW it was not a settled issue at all and the confederate states had a fairly good case to justify their withdrawal from the USA.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

All one has to do is read the various Articles of Secession from the southern states to know why they broke away and waged war.

And that waging of war was treason.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm not dodging anything.

I don't believe you.

The act of creating the Confederacy itself was treasonous

you could make that argument but once it was formed it was a nation thus they weren't against their own Nation they were fighting for their Nation.

as was levying war against the US.

you can't Levy war against a nation unless you're a nation.

That's simple reality and apparently that makes you uncomfy.

what do you care how I feel? Are you attempting to say that because I'm so uncomfortable with your revision of History that I'm somehow disqualified from saying how it's a revision and not an actual fact?

That's a profoundly dishonest debate tactic and the only people that attempt it know that their argument is garbage.

It's OK that you don't have a rational point to make and are now lashing out emotionally.

Which emotion?

 

[apdst]

What do you think your link says? If you're trying to claim that it make confederate soldiers U.S. veterans (which it seems you confirm in your posts #23 and #29) that would be wrong.


Your link is an admendment to http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/56.pdf, a law passed almost 100 years after the war. It provides pensions to Civil War veterans' widows and children. That's all! Scroll down to Sec. 432 and Sec. 433 (page 107).


It does not make them U.S. veterans

The law in the link specifically refers to ex-Confederates as "U.S. veterans".

 

[Tanngrisnir]

as a nation called the Confederate States.

That wasn't recognized by the United States. Hence, treason.

only if they weren't a nation which they were called the Confederate States. So it was not textbook treason it was war.

It was a treasonous war, despite your rationalizations

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Actually, you're supporting the erasure of history. An what history don't wish to erase you wish to morphadite into a version that is politically acceptable.

No, I'm not. Why be so laughably intellectually dishonest?

Oh, wait. You have no rational argument and have to rely on emotional nonsense.

 

[JasperL]

this is the reason why you need a better understanding of History. A black girl does not see a monument to a person who thought she was inferior that person died over a century ago and has no idea who a black girl that exists in modern world today is. The person memorialized may have believed her ancestors to be inferior. However he believed that because they were slaves not because they were black. The point where the slave class became strictly black happened later during slavery and it was predicated on the concept of slavery itself not racism.

Sorry, but read the declarations of slavery or the Corner Stone speech. They believed BLACKS were inferior. They could not have stated it more clearly than they did. The premise of Jim Crow was the same - blacks were inferior. Goodness - you're advancing straight up Lost Cause BS.

yes history was brutal. Adora brutal unfair times in our nation's history. It is important we don't destroy that history so as to not repeat it. You can't apply modern-day morals two people that lived and died over a century ago. Remember it be angry about it that's good it's an excellent way to evolve grow and move forward.

The U.S. dynamited symbols of Nazi Germany. How many monuments to Hitler in the public square in Germany? None. Have they erased history? No. It's a false choice - keep the monuments and remember history or remove them and forget it.

why on Earth would you want to erase such a symbol? It is important more than that it is an inspiring Tale of how far we have advanced and just a couple hundred years.

It was just half a century ago that we had laws in place that forbade black people from using water fountains and today Nothing Stops a black man from becoming president for either party. Isn't that amazing? Isn't that an inspiring tale of human Triumph?

Yes it was brutal and people died and we're mistreated and there are probably heels that were soaked with blood. If it's that important that 600000 men died for it why would you ever want to erase that?

Great, put up a monument glorifying those great leaps forward, something we can all be proud of. How does a monument to Jefferson Davis inspire me or you, today? He doesn't.

I'm sorry the views of the little girl don't exist. Again a man that died over a century ago has no idea that said little girl ever existed she came into existence long after his death. And what about the amazing tale of human Triumph between then and now?

What about the reunification of the United States after the Civil War? How many countries can just go back to the way it was after Civil War? How many cultures listened to the lowest among them and faught for them to the point at which we are where we are today where the concept of segregation is so alien we can't even empathize?

I don't know what you mean that the little girl's views "don't exist." They do because black people express them, clearly and articulately, without venom in many cases. Just telling us what they SEE.

And what about the reunification - for a century it was hollow for blacks who were forced at the pointed gun of the STATE to be inferior citizens. And I can empathize with segregation because it was going on in my lifetime, and my parents remember it vividly, and spoke of it. And it's not as if the CRA was signed and segregation ended - took at least decades for blacks to regain just some of the ground lost through centuries of state sponsored oppression and it's impossible to argue it's still not affecting them as a group.

The monument isn't built to say how great slavery was. It was built to inspire.

Built by segregationists during Jim Crow to inspire whites. Blacks weren't consulted because they could not vote or hold office. Who does Davis inspire in 2017 other than white supremacists?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I don't believe you.

That's nice.

you could make that argument but once it was formed it was a nation thus they weren't against their own Nation they were fighting for their Nation.

PRATT. Not interested, thanks.

you can't Levy war against a nation unless you're a nation. what do you care how I feel? Are you attempting to say that because I'm so uncomfortable with your revision of History that I'm somehow disqualified from saying how it's a revision and not an actual fact?

I haven't revised any history. You're starting to lie more frequently. You might want to reconsider your 'argument', that being the case.

That's a profoundly dishonest debate tactic and the only people that attempt it know that their argument is garbage.

An observation of material fact is a 'dishonest debate tactic'? Really?

Which emotion?

"It's okay you can't hash it out and you're just trying to save face I get it. But you aren't fooling me. Perhaps I'm not the person you're trying to fool"

When you're out of facts, project onto others what you yourself are doing.

That's being emotional.

 

[jamesrage]

The person I responded too claimed that it was not true that these things went up in the Jim Crow era. It's fact that they did. It's likely that in nearly every case, the governments in the South erecting them had NO blacks in office because few if any blacks could vote, so the same men denying blacks the vote erected monuments to men who fought to keep them enslaved. Surely you can see why blacks and others, like me, have a problem with that, and don't mind them coming down. .

I can see what people would be pissed about those statues. But at the same time not everyone sees those statues as a middle finger to black people. Because not everyone saw the civil war as a war for slavery and oppression of black people. But the fact a statues honoring general, and other soldiers went up decades after a war happened does not prove they put those statues up as a memorial to slavery, segregation and racism. WWI,WWII and Korean war memorials went up many decades after those wars were over.

I'm no zealot on the issue - my view is the local communities in 2017 should decide who to honor, and if they were deciding on who to honor today, I doubt any would decide, "You know, let's glorify a dead Confederate!" So, take them down, fine with me (or not! Also fine). Put up a monument to people ALL the citizens can admire for who they are and what they did.

I agree that it should be up to the residents of those cities/towns. If they want to keep those statues up,take them down, throw them in a landfill, put them in a museum, auction them,[ut them in a sewage plant or what ever it should be their decision.

 

[JasperL]

The Confederacy only existed because they didn't like what their nation turned into. Not saying they were right, but that's the historical fact. The Confederacy came about because American citizens could no longer take what America was like so they split off, or attempted to.

Correct - the Confederacy was formed because a bunch of abolitionists were elected who threatened the existence of slavery in the states over time and were an immediate threat to the spread of slavery to the territories. They told us this in the clearest possible terms. Historical fact.

 

[CLAX1911]

I understand and accept that you're compelled to pretend that it is to protect your narrative.

if you so aptly hashed this out a million times before, you could easily bring reality crushing down on me. By simply making an argument.

But this is a form of avoidance. I used to think it was clever but now I can spot it almost instantly.

You are avoiding making a sound argument because you can't. So you attack my sanity my emotional state and everything else because you can't attack my argument. You abandoned the argument to attack me and that's all you've done. Of course outside of belligerently and baselessly claiming "duh treason" over and over as if repetition equals correctness.

I'm not changing anything,

that's right you're just attempting to. People like me won't let you.

but again, I understand your need to pretend that I am to distract from the fact you have no rational argument to make.

again this dishonest tactic where you attack me in attempt to apply an emotional state that is irrational in order to declare me mentally unable to discuss this.

I have presented a rational argument you refused to address it because you can't.

My rational argument is that the Confederacy was a nation unto itself thus fighting against another Nation for Independence is not treason.

They committed treason no matter how much that upsets you.

no they didn't you're wrong as I have proven. An independent nation cannot commit treason against another Nation.

You never addressed that you just repeat the same unsupported to claim over and over and over as if to try and convince yourself.

Yawn. Go peddle your revisionist bull**** to someone dumb enough to buy it.

tell me exactly what I tried to revise?

What's the Confederate State imaginary was the Civil War imaginary? What part of History have I said that wasn't true?

Or is this just yet another pathetically unsupported accusations in order to attack me instead of my argument?

 

[JasperL]

Hardly. It's more along the lines of "American history offends our precious little liberal sensibilities, therefore we're going to do everything in our power to stomp it out." It won't be too much long before liberal college professors will simply refuse to talk about the Civil War at all.

Well, how long do you believe monuments to dead confederates should remain standing? Forever, just because some segregationists in the Jim Crow era in 1918 decided to honor other famous white supremacists with a monument? Or maybe it's OK at some point to honor someone that all the citizens of a community can admire, both for who they are and for what they did?

I'll go with the latter.

And your "liberal college professors..." stuff is just drivel. Removing monuments doesn't erase history.

 

[CLAX1911]

That's nice.

it's nice you have the reputation of someone who cannot be trusted?

Not interested, thanks.

which means not capable. If you are you would.

I haven't revised any history.

you're attempting to in your own mind.

You're starting to lie more frequently.

what did I lie about?

You might want to reconsider your 'argument', that being the case.

I'll stick to my arguments I have you on the Run. Oh you're doing is attacking me, which utterly Delights me because the only reason you would is because you can't attack my arguments. And you're just repeating "it's treason" with nothing to support that claim. That's your only argument it is because you say it is. Arguments without support can be dismissed without support and I have.

An observation of material fact is a 'dishonest debate tactic'? Really?

No your personal attacks on me are a dishonest debate tactic. You have presented no facts to support your argument. All you've done is claim that it was treason. While ignoring the fact that the Confederate states were not the Union.

Your argument is based on ad nauseum, ad hominem and the denial of the simple fact that the Confederate State was a separate nation from the Union.

Are you sure you hashed this out cuz you're doing pretty poorly right now

"It's okay you can't hash it out and you're just trying to save face I get it. But you aren't fooling me. Perhaps I'm not the person you're trying to fool"

When you're out of facts, project onto others what you yourself are doing.

one fact renders your argument untrue and it's the only one I need. The fact that the Confederate States was a separate nation from the Union.

That's being emotional.

I would agree however I'm not out of that I have one and you have zero.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

if you so aptly hashed this out a million times before, you could easily bring reality crushing down on me. By simply making an argument.

But this is a form of avoidance. I used to think it was clever but now I can spot it almost instantly.

You are avoiding making a sound argument because you can't. So you attack my sanity my emotional state and everything else because you can't attack my argument. You abandoned the argument to attack me and that's all you've done. Of course outside of belligerently and baselessly claiming "duh treason" over and over as if repetition equals correctness.

I've already made a sound argument. Pretending I haven't just goes to further demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty.

that's right you're just attempting to. People like me won't let you.

Nor am I attempting to, nor can you demonstrate that I am. To assert that I am it to lie.

again this dishonest tactic where you attack me in attempt to apply an emotional state that is irrational in order to declare me mentally unable to discuss this.

I have presented a rational argument you refused to address it because you can't.

My rational argument is that the Confederacy was a nation unto itself thus fighting against another Nation for Independence is not treason.

The creation of the Confederacy itself was treasonous. The soldiers who fought for the Confederates were still considered to be US citizens and by levying war against the US, they were committing treason.

no they didn't you're wrong as I have proven. An independent nation cannot commit treason against another Nation.

You never addressed that you just repeat the same unsupported to claim over and over and over as if to try and convince yourself.

No, you haven't proven anything. You've just made bare assertions and desperately hoped that they'd be taken seriously. It is irrelevant if the Confederacy considered itself an independent nation: in the eyes of the United States, it wasn't. The Confederacy lost. Treason. Super simple stuff.

tell me exactly what I tried to revise?

What's the Confederate State imaginary was the Civil War imaginary? What part of History have I said that wasn't true?

Or is this just yet another pathetically unsupported accusations in order to attack me instead of my argument?

Attempting to portray them as not being treasonous is revisionism, plain and simple. This seems to be a very difficult concept for you to wrap your head around.

It's patently clear that you need the last word to cover up for the lack of any rational argument, so go ahead and have it. You'll feel better.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Sorry, but read the declarations of slavery or the Corner Stone speech. They believed BLACKS were inferior. They could not have stated it more clearly than they did. The premise of Jim Crow was the same - blacks were inferior. Goodness - you're advancing straight up Lost Cause BS.



The U.S. dynamited symbols of Nazi Germany. How many monuments to Hitler in the public square in Germany? None. Have they erased history? No. It's a false choice - keep the monuments and remember history or remove them and forget it.



Great, put up a monument glorifying those great leaps forward, something we can all be proud of. How does a monument to Jefferson Davis inspire me or you, today? He doesn't.



I don't know what you mean that the little girl's views "don't exist." They do because black people express them, clearly and articulately, without venom in many cases. Just telling us what they SEE.

And what about the reunification - for a century it was hollow for blacks who were forced at the pointed gun of the STATE to be inferior citizens. And I can empathize with segregation because it was going on in my lifetime, and my parents remember it vividly, and spoke of it. And it's not as if the CRA was signed and segregation ended - took at least decades for blacks to regain just some of the ground lost through centuries of state sponsored oppression and it's impossible to argue it's still not affecting them as a group.



Built by segregationists during Jim Crow to inspire whites. Blacks weren't consulted because they could not vote or hold office. Who does Davis inspire in 2017 other than white supremacists?

Thanks for taking the time to go to such length in response. I find it a fool's errand.

The gleeful historical pig-ignorance around here can grow a little tiresome after a while.

 

[Cephus]

Correct - the Confederacy was formed because a bunch of abolitionists were elected who threatened the existence of slavery in the states over time and were an immediate threat to the spread of slavery to the territories. They told us this in the clearest possible terms. Historical fact.

And the founding fathers decided they no longer wanted to be a satellite of England and bear unfair taxation, therefore they decided to break away. You say it like this is unprecedented in American history.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sorry, but read the declarations of slavery or the Corner Stone speech. They believed BLACKS were inferior.

because they were the slave class. You are aware that there's about five hundred years of History leading up to that right? The black people weren't established as a slave class until about 1800.

They could not have stated it more clearly than they did. The premise of Jim Crow was the same - blacks were inferior.

again because they were the slave class.

Goodness - you're advancing straight up Lost Cause BS.

or perhaps I have a better understanding of History regarding slavery in the beginning there were black slaveholders the held white slaves there are white slave holders that held white slaves there were white slave holders that held Native American slaves and so on. History didn't just begin at 1789.

The U.S. dynamited symbols of Nazi Germany. How many monuments to Hitler in the public square in Germany? None. Have they erased history? No.

a general in the Confederate Army was not a dictator over an entire nation.

It's a false choice - keep the monuments and remember history or remove them and forget it.

no it isn't. You haven't even bothered to learn the history your abs so obsessed with hate that you're preventing yourself from learning about it. It's okay some people don't have the stomach for it. The history of civilization is a bloodthirsty and brutal one I understand. But if you're too squeamish to learn then at least don't try to destroy it.



[QUOTEPGreat, put up a monument glorifying those great leaps forward, something we can all be proud of.[/QUOTE]
We do.

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UT...e=android-browser&q=monuments+to+civil+rights

How does a monument to Jefferson Davis inspire me or you, today? He doesn't.

I can't believe I have to say this but the monument isn't the person Jefferson Davis died a hundred years ago he wasn't Frozen as a stone man in place that that's not what that is. It inspires interest to learn who this person was and what he did. If you're willing to strip it out of public what's to stop you from stripping it out of public schools?

History doesn't stop being history because a person in it was a jerk by today's standards.

I don't know what you mean that the little girl's views "don't exist." They do because black people express them, clearly and articulately, without venom in many cases. Just telling us what they SEE.

no they aren't they see the same thing I do our eyes are the same it's just a statue of a man. What they're doing is saying their feelings about it. Boost feelings are perfectly valid that's why it's there. If there's a statue there we talk about it. I may ask a black person why they're so angry with it and if they explain it to me I may learn to understand their perspective. What if they're just trying to stop everything out they don't like I'm going to reject their perspective does that make sense?

And what about the reunification - for a century it was hollow for blacks who were forced at the pointed gun of the STATE to be inferior citizens.

no it wasn't a black man can be president that's not Hollow it wasn't in vain it was for the reason that we exist today the way we do.

History bills and we come from it we're not independent from it the only reason you live in this world today it's because hundreds of thousands of people made sacrifices for it.

And I can empathize with segregation because it was going on in my lifetime, and my parents remember it vividly, and spoke of it.

I can't even imagine it. It is a concept that is very alien to me. My parents were small children when it was abolished. I love the way the world is now and I know it took sacrifice to get here. But I can't empathize with something that's that alien to me and chances are your generation is going to die before mine.

And it's not as if the CRA was signed and segregation ended - took at least decades for blacks to regain just some of the ground lost through centuries of state sponsored oppression and it's impossible to argue it's still not affecting them as a group.

I disagree with something you said they didn't have to regain anything they gained something. People that still argue that it affects them as a group are simply trying to make excuses for why they are where they are.

 

[CLAX1911]

Built by segregationists during Jim Crow to inspire whites. Blacks weren't consulted because they could not vote or hold office.

many people couldn't hold office and are you saying there was a vote to build the Statue? They likely didn't consult anybody they don't have to. A white politician doesn't represent all white people. So white people were likely not consulted either nor Native Americans or Creole or all the other different ways you can divide people by label.

Who does Davis inspire in 2017 other than white supremacists?

Davis is dead he could Inspire **** he's Six Feet Under. The statue and spires this discussion we're having right now. We're talking about a statue not a man.

 

[Top Cat]

You didn't read his link...did you?