West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

[CLAX1911]

Opposing honoring someone who killed others

You don't. I pointed out that there is a statue to a foreign dictator in Seattle that killed 500,000 people and do you pretend like it's a whole different thing.

Lenin is way worse than all the generals in the civil war combined.

 

[Nickyjo]

You don't. I pointed out that there is a statue to a foreign dictator in Seattle that killed 500,000 people and do you pretend like it's a whole different thing.

Lenin is way worse than all the generals in the civil war combined.

I don’t think we should honor Lenin anymore than Jeff Davis. But Southerners fought to maintain a system where humans were bought and sold as property. Let’s get rid of statues to both. But Lenin wasn’t American. Robert E Lee was. That’s why Americans feel and should feel a greater responsibility towards not honoring the latter. If I have it right, neither Stalingrad or Leningrad are still named that. It wasn’t up to Americans to change their names.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don’t think we should honor Lenin anymore than Jeff Davis.

Don't then.

But Southerners fought to maintain a system where humans were bought and sold as property. Let’s get rid of statues to both. But Lenin wasn’t American. Robert E Lee was. That’s why Americans feel and should feel a greater responsibility towards not honoring the latter. If I have it right, neither Stalingrad or Leningrad are still named that. It wasn’t up to Americans to change their names.

Your virtue signal is hollow

 

[Master Debator]

You don't. I pointed out that there is a statue to a foreign dictator in Seattle that killed 500,000 people and do you pretend like it's a whole different thing.

Lenin is way worse than all the generals in the civil war combined.

That statue is on private property. Who's suggesting slaver idolaters shouldn't be allowed to idolaize slavers on their own property?

 

[Nickyjo]

Don't then.

Your virtue signal is hollow

With respect, you are not making sense. I maintain that honoring people who fought to preserve slavery is not a good thing. If you want to celebrate the great generalship of Stonewall Jackson, fine. Teach his tactics at West Point. But putting up a statue is a bit much, a bit of an insult to black people.

 

[Galactic Spin]

You're right on one thing: once the South exercised its right to secede, there would have been war eventually, though it would have been because Lincoln wanted those taxes. Had the governor of South Carolina allowed Lincoln to do whatever he wanted with Sumter, then Lincoln's next move would have been to gather taxes. History might not have viewed Lincoln the Tax-Gatherer as quite such a saint.

FYI, saying "the North went to war to save the Union" is an abstraction because it expunges the real world benefits the North got from the Union.

The traitor slavers seceded because of slavery.

The United States Army had to kill as many as possible, until they stopped being slaver traitors.

 

[j brown's body]

You don't. I pointed out that there is a statue to a foreign dictator in Seattle that killed 500,000 people and do you pretend like it's a whole different thing.

Lenin is way worse than all the generals in the civil war combined.

He's Russia's problem. Lee is ours.

 

[Tigerace117]

You don't. I pointed out that there is a statue to a foreign dictator in Seattle that killed 500,000 people and do you pretend like it's a whole different thing.

Lenin is way worse than all the generals in the civil war combined.

Nope, because Lenin wasn’t explicitly fighting to defend slavery, unlike the CSA.

 

[SoCal]

Does anyone know the actual number of statues that honor and commemorate President Lincoln and General Grant in the south? I wonder how many there are of General Sherman on his path he took to the sea?

 

[j brown's body]

Does anyone know the actual number of statues that honor and commemorate President Lincoln and General Grant in the south? I wonder how many there are of General Sherman on his path he took to the sea?

How about the number of memorials commemorating the liberation of our fellow citizens' ancestors from bondage? Nary a peep.

 

[Nickyjo]

The traitor slavers seceded because of slavery.

The United States Army had to kill as many as possible, until they stopped being slaver traitors.

Don’t think it’s quite that simple, as it seems that most Rebs were not slave owners. It’s the rulers of the South that thought that their economy was tied to slavery.

Life Mag did a piece around 1960, “If the South had Won the Civil War.” The authors posited that slavery would have been abolished couple decades after.

 

[CLAX1911]

With respect, you are not making sense.

No I'm just not impressed about your virtue signal and that bothers you.

I maintain that honoring people

Honor whoever you want.

 

[CLAX1911]

He's Russia's problem. Lee is ours.

No Lee died over 100 years ago he's not a problem. That's why wetting your pants about statues is stupid.

 

[Master Debator]

Don’t think it’s quite that simple, as it seems that most Rebs were not slave owners. It’s the rulers of the South that thought that their economy was tied to slavery.

Life Mag did a piece around 1960, “If the South had Won the Civil War.” The authors posited that slavery would have been abolished couple decades after.

That author was a ****ing moron. Why would we count how many people owned slaves? That would be like counting how many people own cars. Could we posit that most people don't want cars because 90% of children don't own one? Families owned slaves and depending on the state you live in it could be over 40% of families owned slaves or in some states as low as 20%. What's clear is that Southern Culture idolaized slavery and families who didn't own slaves aspired to own one eventually.

 

[Ouroboros]

You couldn't find a closer parallel (funny you should say that as I'm a retired draftsman/designer). Look, politicians and legal scholars have been arguing over the right of states to succeed since the founding of the country. You may believe they had the right, most others did not. In 1832 President Jackson commenting that any one State declaring that an act of Congress can be voided or prohibited threated to use force against South Carolina, “Disunion, by armed force, is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?”

So people have argued both sides, yet you give absolutely no moral weight to the side that opposed slavery regardless of your apples and oranges comparison of racism in the north. You can ignore it or downplay it, but the bottom line is that they stated outright that slavery was the reason for their war in both their Succession Declarations and Constitution.


This is the most far fetched argument I've ever heard even from an apologist and that's saying a lot. This will be my last reply to you, I'm amazed people are still debating the same points well over 1,300 times. Don't you folks ever get bored??

So with regard to secession, you're okay with the majority opinion because you agree with it. But if the majority opinion of American citizens in Civil War times was that Black people were not competent to live alongside White people, that would be a different matter, right?

I give moral weight to the abolitionists and have said so three or four times; it's not my fault that all you Libs can think about is someone knocking your precious narrative. I've also said several times that I don't think the politicians were against slavery except for the purpose of gaining Congressional power. Eliminating more slave states ensured that the South would lose "the power of self-government," which is a phrase from South Carolina's Secession Delaration that Libs never quote because it doesn't fit the narrative.

That's a faux-weighty opinion from the President most associated with violating compacts with Native Americans. And how did Good Old Andrew think that disunion could ever take place without at least the IMPLICIT threat of force?

 

[Ouroboros]

Lincoln did not commit any illegal acts.

Cold dead tripe.

 

[Ouroboros]

"“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s."

How the US Got So Many Confederate Monuments | HISTORY

These commemorations tell a national story.

www.history.com

And I can produce another source that says from 1890 to 1925, because that was, as I specified, the first wave, not the absolute ONLY time anyone ever built a patriotic statue. If you're going to discuss a phenomenon that BEGAN at a given time, then you discuss influences FROM that time. Sorry that's so hard to follow.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm still confused about what libs you're referring to because it sure as **** ain't me or anyone I know. I don't care much about the constitution either other than when I can use it to get Simp whites to agree to their own demographic replacement via the 14th. It's not a sacred ****ing document delivered by Mary's burning bush, it's just another set of rules and provisions we argue over how to interpret and implement. Does "a well regulated militia" actually mean we get to heavily regulate you wanna be commandos? Does "the free exercise of religion" entail denying the people who work for your profit seeking company any birth control? I don't know. I guess 9 assholes, 3 of whom were chosen by a President who lost the popular vote get to decided because a bunch of aristocrats created an Electoral College to give slavers a handicap so they didn't walk away from the table before they could solidify their slave empire.

I'm not interested in "proving" anything to you. Your thirst for the Slaving South is apparent whenever you start talking about what rights you think a slave state has. That you think slavers have rights at all already betray where your sympathies lie. I'm here trying to offer you advice. Either be a proud slaver idolater or don't be one at all but this is just weak and pathetic.

A childish argument. Slave states had the same rights as free states because the Constitution bound them into the same compact, the same compact that you Libs think to be perpetual, even if some of you choose to shift the argument to some other ground that makes sense in your delusions.

There was an easy way for the framers of the Constitution to avoid tainting the country with slavery; just not make any deals with states that permitted slavery. And let's see, back in 1776, that would have meant a grand alliance of what, two or three non-slavery states? The fact that some states changed their minds doesn't mean they got to change the agreement except through the legal means of changing the Constitution.

Here's a news flash that will go right over your head: slavery is not a unique evil. It's one of many evils human beings have used to dick with one another. So when you Libs gnash your teeth over "capital-S Slavery," I can barely keep from laughing.

As for the opinions of your last paragraph, they mean less to me than a dog-turd I have to step over to get where I'm going.

 

[post]

You don't. I pointed out that there is a statue to a foreign dictator in Seattle that killed 500,000 people and do you pretend like it's a whole different thing.

Lenin is way worse than all the generals in the civil war combined.

A statue of Lenin in Seattle? What about him? This is about honoring on government property, an institution training military officers, a leader of an
armed rebellion against the United States, while depicted in the uniform of a rebel military commander! LOL, really?



The reaction of the federal military authority was frequent all out engagement and combat, and then the military response going sideways, beginning with,

The Surrender Meeting - Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

"...The heart of the terms was that Confederates would be paroled after surrendering their weapons and other military property. If surrendered soldiers did not take up arms again, the United States government would not prosecute them. Grant also allowed Confederate officers to keep their mounts and side arms. Some accounts mention that Grant glanced at Lee’s dress sword before including that line, and Grant indicated he included it to avoid any unnecessary humiliation for the Confederate officers. Stories soon circulated that Lee offered and Grant refused Lee’s ornate sword, but Grant dismissed them all as “pure romance”.

Lee appeared relieved by the terms. Grant said he could not tell what Lee was thinking, but some indication of his anxiety might be inferred. When Lee dressed in his finest uniform that morning, he indicated to his staff that he expected to be taken prisoner and wanted to be in proper form and “make his best appearance”..."

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay.. give me your rationale of why they erected monuments to civil war generals to protest federal tariffs.

Wait a minute and I will get my popcorn.

I didn't say it was a protest. I said that punitive tariffs went on long past Reconstruction and that Southerners resented them as much as they had prior to the Civil War. But there wasn't anything that Southern leaders could do to end the tariffs, since the Civil War indicated that the Federal government was not going to let anyone secede from the "perpetual union" and thus forfeit that lovely money.

Since there was no way to defy the Fed, at least until income taxes took the place of tariffs as a means to fund the government, Southerners wanted images of their defiance of the North, and Southern politicians gave them those images. To anticipate the expected counter, this does not mean that Southerners were any more ennobled by statues of Civil War generals than Northerners were by the Lincoln Memorial. But an appeal to civic pride makes more sense than some covert message to Black people.

 

[Ouroboros]

The traitor slavers seceded because of slavery.

The United States Army had to kill as many as possible, until they stopped being slaver traitors.

Glad to accept your concession that you cannot speak to the motives of the North for waging war except in meaningless bromides.

 

[post]

Glad to accept your concession that you cannot speak to the motives of the North for waging war except in meaningless bromides.

You can't be serious! Have you never encountered an extremist aggressor you haven't regarded as "the victim"?

 

[CLAX1911]

A statue of Lenin in Seattle? What about him?

Idk he killed 500,000 people.

This is about honoring on government property, an institution training military officers, a leader of an
armed rebellion against the United States, while depicted in the uniform of a rebel military commander! LOL, really?

Oh hurumph... It's such a big deal and I care so so so much about people seeing a painting and others pretending that it's some kind of honor to a man that died 100 years ago.

View attachment 67430607

The reaction of the federal military authority was frequent all out engagement and combat, and then the military response going sideways, beginning with,

The Surrender Meeting - Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

"...The heart of the terms was that Confederates would be paroled after surrendering their weapons and other military property. If surrendered soldiers did not take up arms again, the United States government would not prosecute them. Grant also allowed Confederate officers to keep their mounts and side arms. Some accounts mention that Grant glanced at Lee’s dress sword before including that line, and Grant indicated he included it to avoid any unnecessary humiliation for the Confederate officers. Stories soon circulated that Lee offered and Grant refused Lee’s ornate sword, but Grant dismissed them all as “pure romance”.

Lee appeared relieved by the terms. Grant said he could not tell what Lee was thinking, but some indication of his anxiety might be inferred. When Lee dressed in his finest uniform that morning, he indicated to his staff that he expected to be taken prisoner and wanted to be in proper form and “make his best appearance”..."

It's history. Nobody is being honored they're dead they can't feel honor.

 

[Master Debator]

A childish argument. Slave states had the same rights as free states because the Constitution bound them into the same compact, the same compact that you Libs think to be perpetual, even if some of you choose to shift the argument to some other ground that makes sense in your delusions.

I'm a child and you think a piece of parchment gave them magical rights?

The Southern States had legal rights under the United States constitution and then none when they seceded.

There was an easy way for the framers of the Constitution to avoid tainting the country with slavery; just not make any deals with states that permitted slavery. And let's see, back in 1776, that would have meant a grand alliance of what, two or three non-slavery states? The fact that some states changed their minds doesn't mean they got to change the agreement except through the legal means of changing the Constitution.

So you think one party was allowed to change their mind but the other party wasn't and the one you give leeway to are the slavers and we're supposed all pretend like we don't know who you're fronting for?

Here's a news flash that will go right over your head: slavery is not a unique evil. It's one of many evils human beings have used to dick with one another. So when you Libs gnash your teeth over "capital-S Slavery," I can barely keep from laughing.

I'm not gnashing my teeth and I don't believe in evil. I believe in strategically using the useful idiots who front for slavers as a means to isolate them from the mainstream and push their deplorable mutant culture towards extinction.

As for the opinions of your last paragraph, they mean less to me than a dog-turd I have to step over to get where I'm going.

It wasn't sincere advice anyway. Pretend, don't pretend, it's not going to stop the destruction and elimination of deplorable mutant southern culture from decent, mainstream society.

 

[Variant]

Don’t think it’s quite that simple, as it seems that most Rebs were not slave owners. It’s the rulers of the South that thought that their economy was tied to slavery.

Life Mag did a piece around 1960, “If the South had Won the Civil War.” The authors posited that slavery would have been abolished couple decades after.

It was the rich and powerful that owned slaves, they were the reason the South decided to secede over slavery (they actually left because an abolitionist was elected president and their political power to enforce slavery was ending) and convinced the general population to support them overwhelmingly in this.

Slavery was in fact doomed regardless, but the south was having a collective stupid moment that caused hundreds of thousands dead.

The civil war was one of the dumbest conflicts known to man and the traitors who perpetuated it should not be celebrated.