KKK Like Rally in Charlottesville

[Moot]

Are all those people in that video racists/white supremacists?

Sure looks like it.

 

[Napoleon]

He fought for the cause. Just because he was unprinicpled in the matter doesn't mean he gets a pass. Especially seeing how it wasn't that big a deal to him that his wife owned slaves.

Lee fought because, as disapproving as he was of slavery and succession, he believed that a Federal government that would force its will on the States and the people at the barrel of a gun was worse and should not go unchallenged. That is why he fought and for that he deserves to be honored regardless of what the BLM boobs say. And yes, he inherited slaves from his father-in-law - whom he emancipated.

 

[poweRob]

Lee fought because, as disapproving as he was of slavery and succession, he believed that a Federal government that would force its will on the States and the people at the barrel of a gun was worse and should not go unchallenged. That is why he fought and for that he deserves to be honored regardless of what the BLM boobs say.

There is no spin that can take away the fact that he fought to keep slavery allive for the south.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Lee fought because, as disapproving as he was of slavery and succession, he believed that a Federal government that would force its will on the States and the people at the barrel of a gun was worse and should not go unchallenged. That is why he fought and for that he deserves to be honored regardless of what the BLM boobs say.

What about general George Thomas, a fellow Virginian who remained loyal to the union and went against his own family

 

[JasperL]

Tell me exactly how Robert E. Lee - a man who opposed both slavery and sucession - was a persecutor.

I've already acknowledged that Lee was a complicated man, but he doesn't get a free pass because he said some words. Bottom line is he fought FOR secession and FOR a country whose "foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

THAT is the legacy he fought for. What he said when the words didn't matter are less important than for what cause he fought, despite his stated misgivings. If you were a slave in a post Civil War CSA (should they have won the war) do you care that one of the great generals that fought and killed so that YOU would remain a slave for a few more generations SAID something something about not really liking slavery?

Alternatively - words are cheap, and we judge people based on what they DO, not on what they say, especially when their actions contradict their cheap words.

"

 

[Napoleon]

There is no spin that can take away the fact that he fought to keep slavery allive for the south.

That is not factually why he fought.

 

[Napoleon]

I've already acknowledged that Lee was a complicated man, but he doesn't get a free pass because he said some words. Bottom line is he fought FOR secession and FOR a country whose "foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

THAT is the legacy he fought for. What he said when the words didn't matter are less important than for what cause he fought, despite his stated misgivings. If you were a slave in a post Civil War CSA (should they have won the war) do you care that one of the great generals that fought and killed so that YOU would remain a slave for a few more generations SAID something something about not really liking slavery?

Alternatively - words are cheap, and we judge people based on what they DO, not on what they say, especially when their actions contradict their cheap words.

"

Lee emancipated the slaves he inherited so his words most certainly were not cheap. He didn't fight in favor of slavery or of sucession or of the Confederacy but for a greater purpose - to challenge a tyrannical Federal government. I don't claim that the man was without sin, but I will also not find him guilty by association.

 

[Deuce]

That is not factually why he fought.

That's exactly why the south seceded. The ensuing war is the result. They did all of that specifically to preserve the ability to keep human beings in chains.

 

[Tigerace117]

No I wasn't. Don't put words in my mouth. Your Leftist supremacy doesn't enable you to read minds.

Ah, the age old victim culture shows itself again.

 

[Napoleon]

That's exactly why the south seceded. The ensuing war is the result. They did all of that specifically to preserve the ability to keep human beings in chains.

Yes and no. The South was absolutely in favor of retaining slavery as a legal institution, but the motive for succession and ultimately the war was much bigger than its own position - it was that each State and its people had a constitutional right to that choice regardless of the outcome. The North didn't give a fig about slavery except as a useful propaganda tool to keep the European powers out of the war and deal an economic blow to Southern States.

 

[katzgar]

Yes and no. The South was absolutely in favor of retaining slavery as a legal institution, but the motive for succession and ultimately the war was much bigger than its own position - it was that each State and its people had a constitutional right to that choice regardless of the outcome. The North didn't give a fig about slavery except as a useful propaganda tool to keep the European powers out of the war and deal an economic blow to Southern States.

I suggest you read the states articles of secession. The civil war was all about slavery. I also suggest you read up on the abolitionist movement. to say the north didnt care about slavery is the worst revisionist crap.

 

[JasperL]

Lee emancipated the slaves he inherited so his words most certainly were not cheap. He didn't fight in favor of slavery or of sucession or of the Confederacy but for a greater purpose - to challenge a tyrannical Federal government. I don't claim that the man was without sin, but I will also not find him guilty by association.

It wasn't guilt by association - he fought FOR THE CSA. If his efforts carried the say, we WOULD HAVE HAD a country dedicated to what Stephens laid out in his Corner Stone speech.

You're misusing the term "guilt by association." It would be like a guy working to elect George Wallace and his platform of white supremacy now and forever but claiming to REALLY support him for his tax cut proposals, so supporting that racist white supremacist was only "guilt by association." At best for Lee and that fictional guy supporting Wallace, the plight of blacks didn't really matter to them.

 

[Paperview]

Lee emancipated the slaves he inherited so his words most certainly were not cheap. ....

Only because he was forced to.

Lee owned slaves, was a harsh slavemaster & he only freed his slaves because he had to in 1862, per order of the will.

 

[poweRob]

That is not factually why he fought.

Matters not why he personally chose to fight. It matters what he ultimately fought for.

 

[Napoleon]

Matters not why he personally chose to fight. It matters what he ultimately fought for.

The same can be said of the Founsing Fathers and anyone who fought in the revolutionary war for that matter.

 

[JasperL]

Yes and no. The South was absolutely in favor of retaining slavery as a legal institution, but the motive for succession and ultimately the war was much bigger than its own position - it was that each State and its people had a constitutional right to that choice regardless of the outcome. The North didn't give a fig about slavery except as a useful propaganda tool to keep the European powers out of the war and deal an economic blow to Southern States.

To be honest, this kind of Lost Cause nonsense is EXACTLY why a lot of folks believe monuments to people who fought for the CSA ought to be removed from places of honor in public spaces. Slavery was a big issue in the POTUS campaign, and "the north" elected Lincoln whose views on the subject were so abhorrent to the South they seceded before he took office. So to say the North "didn't give a fig" about the issue is just alternative history, fake news, historical revisionism.

 

[apdst]

Ah, the age old victim culture shows itself again.

It'll be a cold day in hell before you victimize anyone, son. That right there is a reality you best accept, for your own good.

 

[apdst]

Sure looks like it.

You're a mind reader, too?

 

[Moot]

You're a mind reader, too?

I have skills.

 

[JasperL]

Are all those people in that video racists/white supremacists?

Maybe not but they sure don't mind associating with neo-Nazi racist assholes like Richard Spencer, so I'm not sure the question is all that relevant. That they show up to an event pushed by that POS tells you all you need to know about at least the vast majority. People with an ordinary sense of integrity and shame wouldn't be caught anywhere near that event except perhaps for the same morbid curiosity that motivates people to rubber neck bad auto accidents.

 

[Deuce]

Yes and no. The South was absolutely in favor of retaining slavery as a legal institution, but the motive for succession and ultimately the war was much bigger than its own position - it was that each State and its people had a constitutional right to that choice regardless of the outcome. The North didn't give a fig about slavery except as a useful propaganda tool to keep the European powers out of the war and deal an economic blow to Southern States.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

 

[Tigerace117]

It'll be a cold day in hell before you victimize anyone, son. That right there is a reality you best accept, for your own good.

Well then, how else to explain the constant streams of victim culture we've been seeing coming from the far right over monuments to a slaveocracy being removed?

 

[apdst]

Well then, how else to explain the constant streams of victim culture we've been seeing coming from the far right over monuments to a slaveocracy being removed?

There's no victim culture on the Right. We're not the ones that see a racist/sexist/homophobe under every rock and around every corner. We sure as hell aren't the ones offended by a century old statue that we've never seen in person.

 

[Tigerace117]

There's no victim culture on the Right. We're not the ones that see a racist/sexist/homophobe under every rock and around every corner. We sure as hell aren't the ones offended by a century old statue that we've never seen in person.

Oh, that's definitely not true. I've seen plenty of examples of victim culture in right wing posters on here.

You should be, seeing as it's a monument to an especially evil cause. But I'm not surprised you care more about whining about how "leftists" are "persecuting" you.

 

[Socrates1]

In their effort to protect the memory of Robert E Lee, the white nationalists found their rallying cry.

Well, at least they didn't wear the hooded sheets

Was it like a BLM rally ? How many were injured ? How many stores were looted ? :shock: