Protesters Tear Down Confederate Statue

[Tangmo]

You do understand that the vast, VAST majority of Confederate soldiers were way too poor to own slaves? They were, in essence, fighting to protect their homes and families.

You do also understand, I hope, that even after Lincoln issued the Proclamation, states in the NORTH continued to own slaves?

What you're missing is that people love their family members and they will honor them. Institutions, such as UNC, will also honor their dead students.

Your ideas are not far removed from those of ISIS.

Poor white Confederates fought to preserve a system that put their uneducated, perspiring and miserable lives a notch above the black guy who was a slave. You got paid your one cent while the slave did not get paid a red cent. The slave got hanged and you didn't. We know well some slaves were integrated into the master's house which gave rise to an alternative descriptor of "house servant" that is a no-no to say in the contemporary times. Yes, and blacks fought for the Confederacy as we know well.

Across the State House in Boston at the Common Park is a large stone monument to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, the volunteer force of black soldiers commanded by white officers, chiefly Colonel Robert Shaw who died with his men in South Carolina. The white officers had families while the black former slave soldiers had mostly their idea and passion for freedom. Freedom from The Master, i.e., the Lord of the Plantation. Now we have switched appropriately to talk about the patriots of the civil war. Talking of Union Patriots stands in a stark contrast to the sycophant praise, worship, celebration and veneration of the traitor soldiers of the Confederacy. And their vile monuments and memorials to white supremacy, racism, secession, slavery.


54th Massachusetts Memorial on the Boston Common Facing the State House

Designed by Augustus Saint-Gaudens, the bronze “Shaw Memorial” to Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment was unveiled on Memorial Day, 1897.

https://www.gettysburgdaily.com/54th-massachusetts-memorial/





No Fuss Here Folks

The Memorial and the State House Center Building Facing

From a Pictorial by the Gettysburg Times

The glorification, celebration and veneration of the Confederate soldier and the Confederacy are OTT. Shamelessly, relentlessly, abominably.

 

[Fishking]

Says the person defending the criminality in the White House. Oh, Irony... you never cease to disappoint

Do you have a specific crime you're thinking of?

 

[Tangmo]

I said they were free to stay or go. It has zero to do with agreeing with me. It has to do with abiding by the law. Funny how this is suddenly about me. You guys are as predictable as sunrise. You also failed to answer my question.

I saw you toss those goalposts over the edge of the cliff I did. So I tossed your questions right after 'em because that's where your loaded interrogatories belong. You've gone from telling everyone in NC to vote to hauling away the goalposts after several posts between you and I established blacks as having their polling stations closed, moved, renamed. I noted the state enacted a law prohibiting moving or retiring Confederate statues and memorials, yet you're still loving the law in the post above. So it's about the evolution of your posts because nothing in the state has changed in the matter.

Here btw is your post #235 to the thread, in which you are endorsing everything negative about NC that the thread is reporting and documenting to include the laws protecting, preserving, venerating Confederate statues and memorials....

None of that changes what I said. I'm not trying to cast out anyone. I'm saying that the system must be followed and if you can't get what you want through the system then you accommodate yourself to it or go elsewhere. I've lived in a very blue state my whole life but I do what I can and accept that that's how it is. If things were to ever get intolerable for me here, I'd go somewhere else.

Accommodate to 21st century Jim Crow laws or go elsewhere, as if people born in or grown up in NC were disposable to the whims of those who preserve the Confederacy, protect it, venerate it.

 

[Fishking]

So you think that ancient relic is worth $300K a year to protect?

Nope. Nor do I think it should cost that much to protect it, but that just goes to undermine your previous comment. If there wasn't so much violent leftist then it would cost $0.

 

[HowardBThiname]

The last part of the post is overbearing, presumptuous, authoritarian. So it misses the point -- yet again. The Confederate monuments in the Old Confederacy worship, celebrate and venerate the Confederacy. Yes the war is long over but the Confederacy continues.

LOL -- while you keep saying that I'm missing the point -- the entire topic keeps soaring right over your head.

The Confederacy does NOT continue -- except in the minds of those who are not satisfied with the Union's victory a century and a half ago. Only in the minds of those biblical few who want to punish the descendants of the Confederacy for the war their ancestors fought.
These minds are akin to the minds of ISIS members who seek to blot out the history of others by destroying their icons and symbols.

These are dangerous minds.

The major enabling factor is that Reconstruction was permissive and lax -- forbearing. We'll not make the same mistake again in the aftermath of the current time and circumstance that connects directly to it. Because those who defend the monuments under the pretense of law do in fact defend, protect, preserve and seek to extend the Confederacy, its legacy and its "heritage."' Which is why we need to focus anew on Confederates as the traitors they were and remain.

I have no idea what the above emboldened means but the majority of the people who want to keep the statues simply want to preserve history and those who seek to destroy them are creating a racial divide that will only fan the flames. The statue topplers are driven by unreasonable hatred and are looking for ways to lash out. Well, not all of them, in fact, not even most of them. Most of them are just idiot kids that go along to get along. Most are probably half drunk when they take part in vandalism.

Those who think they need to punish southerners so long after the fact are dangerous people. I hope law enforcement is taking notes.

 

[HowardBThiname]

So you think that ancient relic is worth $300K a year to protect?

Probably not but nothing is.

They ought to just electrify the statue and shock the little ****s when they start their shenanigans.

 

[calamity]

Do you have a specific crime you're thinking of?

obstruction, money laundering, tax evasion, campaign finance violation, conspiracy against the United States...

 

[PLizzy]

Probably not but nothing is.

They ought to just electrify the statue and shock the little ****s when they start their shenanigans.

Thanks a lot, the thought of this made my soda go up through my sinuses.:lamo

 

[HowardBThiname]

Poor white Confederates fought to preserve a system that put their uneducated, perspiring and miserable lives a notch above the black guy who was a slave.

Most of them didn't give two hoots about protecting slavery. Most of them simply wanted to protect their families from the Union soldiers that overran the South -- raping women and even little children, burning their homes, killing their livestock. The average Confederate soldier came to hate the Union -- that is true -- but not over slaves. Over the inhumane slaughter the Union wreaked on the civilians of the South. Just imagine, if we tried soldiers for war crimes back then -- imagine how many Union soldiers, and their commanders, would have been hanging from the end of a roped. Fortunately for them, we didn't implement war crime provisions until the following century.

It's interesting the way you approach an issue - from a very narrow -- blinders on -- point of view.

Fascinating.

 

[Fishking]

obstruction, money laundering, tax evasion, campaign finance violation, conspiracy against the United States...

So you're saying the IRS missed something in his audits? Obstruction of what and how? Money laundering? Again, the IRS missed that in the audit? Conspiracy hasn't been shown but is also not a crime.

 

[calamity]

So you're saying the IRS missed something in his audits? Obstruction of what and how? Money laundering? Again, the IRS missed that in the audit? Conspiracy hasn't been shown but is also not a crime.

lol @ "Conspiracy is not a crime" :lamo

 

[Tigerace117]

Most of them didn't give two hoots about protecting slavery. Most of them simply wanted to protect their families from the Union soldiers that overran the South -- raping women and even little children, burning their homes, killing their livestock. The average Confederate soldier came to hate the Union -- that is true -- but not over slaves. Over the inhumane slaughter the Union wreaked on the civilians of the South. Just imagine, if we tried soldiers for war crimes back then -- imagine how many Union soldiers, and their commanders, would have been hanging from the end of a roped. Fortunately for them, we didn't implement war crime provisions until the following century.

It's interesting the way you approach an issue - from a very narrow -- blinders on -- point of view.

Fascinating.

:lamo

No buddy, there was no "inhumane slaughter". The Union Army was downright mild when dealing with a treasonous populace which routinely "bushwhacked" noncombatants--- read up some on Quantrill's Raiders before you started spewing that load of crap about the Union Army supposedly "slaughtering" poor slavers.

Not to mention, of course, that under the laws of war of the time the Union Army had no obligation to take anyone who wasn't wearing a uniform and shot at Union troops prisoner.

Your argument is based on not just revisionist history, but sheer stupidity. The unmitigated gall it takes for someone who supports the Confederacy--- one of the worst causes in human history, and certainly in Americans history--- to clam that Union troops would have been hung for war crimes is truly astounding.

 

[1750Texan]

Most of them didn't give two hoots about protecting slavery. Most of them simply wanted to protect their families from the Union soldiers that overran the South -- raping women and even little children, burning their homes, killing their livestock. The average Confederate soldier came to hate the Union -- that is true -- but not over slaves. Over the inhumane slaughter the Union wreaked on the civilians of the South. Just imagine, if we tried soldiers for war crimes back then -- imagine how many Union soldiers, and their commanders, would have been hanging from the end of a roped. Fortunately for them, we didn't implement war crime provisions until the following century.

It's interesting the way you approach an issue - from a very narrow -- blinders on -- point of view.

Fascinating.

The same could be said of most NAZI soldiers..but we're not erecting any monuments to them.

 

[Tigerace117]

Some may be but that isn't the point -- the point is that some are outraged about the symbols being there in the first place -- and I as I said, they do not have a "right" not to be offended. Grow up, already. This has become Snowflake Central.



Slavery was bad. But it's over. Move into the current century. A statue dedicated to a university's students that fought and died is a MEMORIAL, not some weird praise of the Confederacy.

I get it -- you're a bandwagon rider and now, more than a century and a half after the Confederacy fell, we find a misguided "movement" if you can call it that, trying to fight a long dead war. And you jump on the bandwagon without a clue as to what you're doing. Then, you start mimicking the words you hear -- even if they don't make a lick of sense -- and you shout your outrage from the rooftops.

Do you not see the insanity in that?

Ah yes, and now the next line of bull**** comes out. "It doesn't matter that they are monuments to slavery and the murder of American troops! I don't think it's it a big deal, and I'm upset that people don't agree with me! Waah!"


:roll:

Yeah bud, let's move into the current century.....oh wait. A big part of that is getting rid of the monuments to white supremacy erected.

A statue to people who died fighting for the Confederacy. Your argument is the equivalent of claiming that a statute to the dead of the Waffen SS isn't a monument to the Nazi cause.

I see people like you have clung to the Confederacy for decades suddenly waking up and realizing that it's not 1950 anymore, that people aren't going to tolerate celebrations of white supremacy any longer, and I see your outrage over that.

That is what is "insane".

 

[Tigerace117]

You do understand that the vast, VAST majority of Confederate soldiers were way too poor to own slaves? They were, in essence, fighting to protect their homes and families.

You do also understand, I hope, that even after Lincoln issued the Proclamation, states in the NORTH continued to own slaves?

What you're missing is that people love their family members and they will honor them. Institutions, such as UNC, will also honor their dead students.

Your ideas are not far removed from those of ISIS.

Removing statues to the Confederacy is not anything like ISIS' ideas.

That is a truly insane claim.

 

[iguanaman]

Nope. Nor do I think it should cost that much to protect it, but that just goes to undermine your previous comment. If there wasn't so much violent leftist then it would cost $0.

Why do you think it is worth protecting at all? It has no artistic value and no one alive even remembers why it is there. Tear it down is the answer. Let's let the Confederacy rest in peace and move on. This has gone on long enough, the "lost cause" and kindly General Lee B.S. were created by white supremacists and so were most of the statues. Their "legacy" is not worth saving.

 

[Tangmo]

LOL -- while you keep saying that I'm missing the point -- the entire topic keeps soaring right over your head.

The Confederacy does NOT continue -- except in the minds of those who are not satisfied with the Union's victory a century and a half ago. Only in the minds of those biblical few who want to punish the descendants of the Confederacy for the war their ancestors fought.
These minds are akin to the minds of ISIS members who seek to blot out the history of others by destroying their icons and symbols.

These are dangerous minds.



I have no idea what the above emboldened means but the majority of the people who want to keep the statues simply want to preserve history and those who seek to destroy them are creating a racial divide that will only fan the flames. The statue topplers are driven by unreasonable hatred and are looking for ways to lash out. Well, not all of them, in fact, not even most of them. Most of them are just idiot kids that go along to get along. Most are probably half drunk when they take part in vandalism.

Those who think they need to punish southerners so long after the fact are dangerous people. I hope law enforcement is taking notes.

Alas you go around in a circle blasting the same rote arguments in reply to the arguments against the Confederate statues and memorials that defend the Confederacy, protect its values and venerate same. You continue to blurb the nonsense that their removal blots them out of the mind and erases the mind of 'em, which is not the idea of removing 'em. You've traipsed from saying the statues are rock only to saying they preserve history only. Preserve what and whose history of when, how, why is the rest of the equation and we know the answers from history.

Right posters are the energizer bunny of their causes meaning the right will post indefinitely on a topic -- to include in surges -- in order to wear the other side down and out, which is the right's definition of winning and, indeed, victory. You're wrong. The right makes the case instead and stronger for a second national reconstruction that clears the decks once and for all. Under the Constitution of course which is what the Union fought for so successfully.

 

[Tangmo]

When do the monuments to Washington and Jefferson come down? I mean, let's be consistent. They owned slaves after all. That is the logical outcome of your policy.

Logic has its place, however, there's more to life than logic only. There's rationality and the processes and outcomes of reasoning. Add a good education, qualifications, experience and a pinch of wit and you'd be in business. So we see where, how and why the right keeps coming up short. The right keeps making the post above and a few variations of it when the Confederate statues and monuments surge again to the fore of the public mind and consciousness. The question is so outlandish to the discussion that it could well be a dropping from the orbit of some craft above. Scooped up immediately of course.

 

[lurchadams]

Do you have a specific crime you're thinking of?

Whenever I see a con ask this idiotic question, I just have to roll my eyes.

 

[Tangmo]

Most of them didn't give two hoots about protecting slavery. Most of them simply wanted to protect their families from the Union soldiers that overran the South -- raping women and even little children, burning their homes, killing their livestock. The average Confederate soldier came to hate the Union -- that is true -- but not over slaves. Over the inhumane slaughter the Union wreaked on the civilians of the South. Just imagine, if we tried soldiers for war crimes back then -- imagine how many Union soldiers, and their commanders, would have been hanging from the end of a roped. Fortunately for them, we didn't implement war crime provisions until the following century.

It's interesting the way you approach an issue - from a very narrow -- blinders on -- point of view.

Fascinating.

Had the Geneva Conventions existed during the civil war the USA would have observed 'em and enforced 'em. So your post is absurd, out of time, severely anti-Union, libel or slander of USA armed forces to include the chain of command; dismissive of the Confederate armies and navy killing United States military combatants in a war begun by the Confederacy -- and so on and so on. The post is the full tilt blasting of bile against the armed forces of the United States -- the Army and the Navy -- to include the respective chain of command. I am not surprised. My curiosity wonders how many of youse would be citizens of the Confederate States of America had the South won the war it started. A whole swarm of you, I'm sure.

(You liked the Trump Jong Un Parade too no doubt.)

 

[HowardBThiname]

:lamo

No buddy, there was no "inhumane slaughter". The Union Army was downright mild when dealing with a treasonous populace which routinely "bushwhacked" noncombatants--- read up some on Quantrill's Raiders before you started spewing that load of crap about the Union Army supposedly "slaughtering" poor slavers.

Not to mention, of course, that under the laws of war of the time the Union Army had no obligation to take anyone who wasn't wearing a uniform and shot at Union troops prisoner.

Your argument is based on not just revisionist history, but sheer stupidity. The unmitigated gall it takes for someone who supports the Confederacy--- one of the worst causes in human history, and certainly in Americans history--- to clam that Union troops would have been hung for war crimes is truly astounding.

Well, we can both see that your knowledge of the war is sorely lacking. What do you think happened in Sherman's March to the Sea? Lots of livestock killed, property burned and lots of rape.

Here's what happened under your Union hero:

Sherman did use POW’s to find the locations of land mines. That is a modern war crime, but wasn’t one when he did it. Arguably, he considered the land mines “uncivilized warfare,” but he used wagons packed full of POW’s, not simply one POW’s to dig them up, suggesting an usually unwholesome brutality.
There were over 450 counts of rape brought into military courts under the Lieber Code. Most were against African-American slave women and pertaining to the March to the Sea. The frequency of rape must have been much, much higher given that the main group targeted had little legal protection and this was a time when rape was a very delicate subject. Sherman letters indicate that he knew rape was occurring and did nothing to stop it, even if he didn’t condone it. Rape and sexual violence is recently considered a war crime if it is used as a violent weapon of armies. Many letters from the period indicate the rapes took place in front of white women and children to make them fearful.

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2013/0...hermans-march-to-the-sea-a-war-crime-part-ii/

 

[HowardBThiname]

Ah yes, and now the next line of bull**** comes out. "It doesn't matter that they are monuments to slavery and the murder of American troops! I don't think it's it a big deal, and I'm upset that people don't agree with me! Waah!"

The monument in question is a memorial to the students from UNC who fought and died.

:roll:

Yeah bud, let's move into the current century.....oh wait. A big part of that is getting rid of the monuments to white supremacy erected.

That's what I'm trying to get you to do.

A statue to people who died fighting for the Confederacy. Your argument is the equivalent of claiming that a statute to the dead of the Waffen SS isn't a monument to the Nazi cause.

I see people like you have clung to the Confederacy for decades suddenly waking up and realizing that it's not 1950 anymore, that people aren't going to tolerate celebrations of white supremacy any longer, and I see your outrage over that.

That is what is "insane".

As I said before, your fascination with anarchism is a detriment, not a plus in this equation.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Removing statues to the Confederacy is not anything like ISIS' ideas.

That is a truly insane claim.

Of course it is -- both represent different times in history, and in both cases, the ones toppling them are extremists who are fearful that the monuments will somehow weaken their hold on society.

You're very transparent.

I've stated many times that I don't care of the statutes stay or go.

But, it must be legal.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Alas you go around in a circle blasting the same rote arguments in reply to the arguments against the Confederate statues and memorials that defend the Confederacy, protect its values and venerate same. You continue to blurb the nonsense that their removal blots them out of the mind and erases the mind of 'em, which is not the idea of removing 'em. You've traipsed from saying the statues are rock only to saying they preserve history only. Preserve what and whose history of when, how, why is the rest of the equation and we know the answers from history.

Your posts are a broken record. Whenever you can't understand a topic, or you want to derail the topic, you just claim the fault lies in the posts of others.

Sorry dude, you've convinced no one.

Right posters are the energizer bunny of their causes meaning the right will post indefinitely on a topic -- to include in surges -- in order to wear the other side down and out, which is the right's definition of winning and, indeed, victory. You're wrong. The right makes the case instead and stronger for a second national reconstruction that clears the decks once and for all. Under the Constitution of course which is what the Union fought for so successfully.

Seriously, this is the sort of post that makes me wonder if you're still in high school. We were having a discussion here and you can't keep up so you compartmentalize with "the Right" instead of debating intellectually.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret -- listen well -- there will be no "second Reconstruction," only an idiot would dream something like that up.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Had the Geneva Conventions existed during the civil war the USA would have observed 'em and enforced 'em. So your post is absurd, out of time, severely anti-Union, libel or slander of USA armed forces to include the chain of command; dismissive of the Confederate armies and navy killing United States military combatants in a war begun by the Confederacy -- and so on and so on.

The Geneva Conventions did not exist -- you're right -- but human decency still did.

Or, it should have.

The post is the full tilt blasting of bile against the armed forces of the United States -- the Army and the Navy -- to include the respective chain of command. I am not surprised.

The only way change happens is by pointing out what's wrong. If you cannot admit that the rape and plunder was wrong, you certainly can't understand how slavery was wrong, either. And -- that makes you dangerous.

My curiosity wonders how many of youse would be citizens of the Confederate States of American had the South won the war it started. A whole swarm of you, I'm sure.

(You liked the Trump Jong Un Parade too no doubt.)

Seeing as my ancestors, which can be traced back to the Revolutionary War, lived in Ohio at the time -- likely not me. Perhaps you, however. Or did your ancestors sneak in later?

At any rate, your hatred for those who still live in the South is duly noted.