What do I find wrong with Confederate Monuments?

[Nickyjo]

George Washington and every other Founding Father COMMITTED TREASON....and?

The South was trying to exercise its RIGHT to leave the union when it so desired.

Gee, why did it want to leave the Union? Did black people have a say in the decision to exercise their RIGHT?

 

[Nickyjo]

States' rights was a noble cause, IMHO. Slavery was already on the way out, due to the cotton gin.

There were honorable and decent men, who OPPOSED SLAVERY, that fought for the South's right to secede, and the defense of States' Rights.

It happened...why FEAR IT?


Only the left seeks to ERASE HISTORY...ALWAYS....just like Mao , Lenin, Pol Pot and Stalin...

It seems you are trying to erase history, notably that of southern leaders like Jeff Davis who explicitly said slavery was the reason for the war. I say let them keep the monuments, but surround them with statues of all those lynched in the state after the war and into the 20th century.

 

[maxparrish]

Nationalism is a pathetic small minded ideology created so losers with no self worth become orcs of the state. It's white trash bait employed by statists.

Actually, until recently, nationalism was widely touted as a wonderful bromide for the ills of the third world...BY THE LEFT. Embodied in the UN's charter as a nations "right to self-determination" as long liberals were focused on hating the west, all sorts of wonderful things were said about nationalism. It was promoted as an intellectual movement, a model providing unity and national purpose. We were assured that every one-party state dictator were good folks, being nationalists and all.

Naturally, with the rise of Trump the idea of nationalism is no longer so appealing because white folk don't get a movement celebrating a right to self-determination...apparently that is only for the benighted third world.

As someone might have told the UN and post WII liberal infatuation with nationalism, be careful what you root for, you just might get it.

 

[ecofarm]

Actually, until recently, nationalism was widely touted as a wonderful bromide for the ills of the third world...BY THE LEFT. Embodied in the UN's charter as a nations "right to self-determination" as long liberals were focused on hating the west, all sorts of wonderful things were said about nationalism. It was promoted as an intellectual movement, a model providing unity and national purpose. We were assured that every one-party state dictator were good folks, being nationalists and all.

Naturally, with the rise of Trump the idea of nationalism is no longer so appealing because white folk don't get a movement celebrating a right to self-determination...apparently that is only for the benighted third world.

As someone might have told the UN and post WII liberal infatuation with nationalism, be careful what you root for, you just might get it.

Promoting a right to self determination is not promoting nationalism. You have misconstrued UN development goals probably through an ignorant conception of nationalism. The UN did not ever and does not now support nationalism.

This is getting stupid. You have no idea what you're babbling about. Who told you this crap?

 

[Nickyjo]

Bull****. The English and Dutch were the world's Number One slave traders at the time of the Civil War.

And "indentured servitude" was RAMPANT there as well.....

Slavery was not even the REAL ISSUE...Lincoln "made it" the issue, to appeal to peoples' EMOTIONS, as there was no INTELLECTUAL or LEGAL POSITION that the secession of any States was illegal, or Un-Constitutional.

The president of the Confederacy, Jeff Davis, said the war was about slavery, tho less so than other southern leaders. A slave owner himself, he was concerned that under the republicans, “property in slaves would become worthless.” You can also look up the statements of states when they seceded for more enlightenment on the issue.

And of course, there is the great line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, “as He (Christ) died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” The northern soldiers were fairly clear on their purpose, obviously surrendering to their silly emotions as Lincoln intended.

 

[maxparrish]

There is no issue with the South honoring their dead. Just as there is no issue Germany honoring their dead. The problem arises when you honor the cause they died for which would include statues of Confederate Generals.

So then the problem arises when you have a statue of a King, Queen, Emperor, Conquer, Religious leader, Military Commander, President, Discoverer, Mountain man, etc. because they lived in a time wherein they shared the era's dubious values regarding family, sexuality, human rights, women's rights, religion, democracy, torture, war, slavery, etc.?

The present cannot dictate the past; what we can do is honor history and recognize those who represent the significant, the relevant, the memorable. A statue of Robert E. Lee no more represents slavery than a statue of the Tudor Queen Elizbeth represents the divine rights of royals or a statue of Martin Luthor represents the cause of anti-Semitism. They are acknowledged because each, in there own way, were unique and powerful agents of history who usually, in some manner, different than their contemporaries.

And it is that uniqueness and importance that provides the bridge to a people's history, the mystic cords of memory that bind into identity.

 

[maxparrish]

Promoting a right to self determination is not promoting nationalism. You have misconstrued UN development goals probably through an ignorant conception of nationalism. The UN did not ever and does not now support nationalism.

This is getting stupid. You have no idea what you're babbling about. Who told you this crap?

Having majored in foreign policy, and a life long interest in political development, you are incorrect. The recent reaction against White nationalism has colored or stunted your learnings; nationalism as an intellectual fashion (e.g. Ho Chi Minh was alleged to be a nationalist (good) not a communist (bad)). This was, in part, a reaction against colonialism and spawned nationalism (and liberation) as good thing - including self-determination.

Indeed, the all-purpose excuse for pan African dictatorships and one-party states were the assurance that they were not communists, just legitimate nationalists.

PS - The right of self-determination for a people is in the UN Charter...how much more "nationalist" can you get?

 

[ecofarm]

Having majored in foreign policy, and a life long interest in political development, you are incorrect. The recent reaction against White nationalism has colored or stunted your learnings; nationalism as an intellectual fashion (e.g. Ho Chi Minh was alleged to be a nationalist (good) not a communist (bad)). This was, in part, a reaction against colonialism and spawned nationalism (and liberation) as good thing - including self-determination.

Indeed, the all-purpose excuse for pan African dictatorships and one-party states were the assurance that they were not communists, just legitimate nationalists.

Your BS about the UN is completely full of crap. What nazi ****hole did you get that from?

I've a Masters in International Environmental Science and I've studied UN development goals for countless hours. You are spewing false garbage.

You are spreading lies in the service of nationalism. See what I mean about becoming an orc?

 

[OldFatGuy]

I proved his claim is utterly stupid, ignorant and false. Of that there can be no doubt.

Didja now? I find his claim repugnant, but not disproved except by empty vessels of law.

 

[ecofarm]

Didja now? I find his claim repugnant, but not disproved except by empty vessels of law.

Read it slower. Maybe divide the words into syllables.

Pay special attention to the words "slave trade". Sound them out if you need.

 

[OldFatGuy]

When slavery is banned all around you and everyone knows it's wrong, murdering Americans to preserve it is a betrayal of mankind.

You push the envelope, projecting your morals on cultures far different. It could be said, your sense of superiority makes you the slaver.

 

[ecofarm]

You push the envelope, projecting your morals on cultures far different. It could be said, your sense of superiority makes you the slaver.

Do you know what the term "slave trade" means? Let's take it one word at a time. I think you're having problems with the second word: "trade". Do you know what trade means? Look it up. Then re read my correction of him and see if you can figure it out this time.

 

[maxparrish]

Your BS about the UN is completely full of crap. What nazi ****hole did you get that from?

I've a Masters in International Environmental Science and I've studied UN development goals for countless hours. You are spewing false garbage.

You are spreading lies in the service of nationalism. See what I mean about becoming an orc?

I see your education has been limited to the narrow and technical - this is not about a list UN economic development goals. It's about the intellectual movements and political history of nationalism and how it influenced western political thought and development - the kind of thing you might have picked up if you recalled (or took) western civ - (most textbooks provide at least a full chapter on the development of political nationalism in the late 18th and the full 19th century).

I'm going to bed, but here is an education link to JUST ONE REGIONAL outline of the advent of nationalism, liberation, and political development in Latin America. https://prezi.com/e6ml2npb5euy/latin-american-revolutions-and-nationalism/

 

[Lursa]

Slavey is not a betrayal of mankind, it is a time honored system for building and maintaining empires. It is a betrayal of yours, of the modern morals of others. Your morals are not the only morals, nor the only extant.

Holy ****

When slavery is banned all around you and everyone knows it's wrong, murdering Americans to preserve it is a betrayal of mankind.

That's all you wrote? It's like seeing Nazi Germany attempt to justify their treatment of the Jews.

 

[yankintx]

So then the problem arises when you have a statue of a King, Queen, Emperor, Conquer, Religious leader, Military Commander, President, Discoverer, Mountain man, etc. because they lived in a time wherein they shared the era's dubious values regarding family, sexuality, human rights, women's rights, religion, democracy, torture, war, slavery, etc.?

The present cannot dictate the past; what we can do is honor history and recognize those who represent the significant, the relevant, the memorable. A statue of Robert E. Lee no more represents slavery than a statue of the Tudor Queen Elizbeth represents the divine rights of royals or a statue of Martin Luthor represents the cause of anti-Semitism. They are acknowledged because each, in there own way, were unique and powerful agents of history who usually, in some manner, different than their contemporaries.

And it is that uniqueness and importance that provides the bridge to a people's history, the mystic cords of memory that bind into identity.

You missed the point of my post. There are many commemorative markers to not only honor the Southern soldiers, but many more acknowledging the Souths terrible history enslaving Africans. I believe those are much more fitting to recognize the error the Confederate soldiers died for. And yes, Lee fought for a regime hell bent on keeping slavery legel. You can claim its erasing history, BS. How about in place of Lees statues a memorial to all those Africans who died on the slave ships coming over to N America.

Unlike Germany which faces up to its past, the South still glorifies an Army which was fighting for an immoral cause. By 1860 the South was one of the few areas left in the world to allow slavery. It was well on its way out, but of course the Souths economy RELIED on slaves to prop up its economy. Often dollors over rule what is morally correct.

 

[yankintx]

So then the problem arises when you have a statue of a King, Queen, Emperor, Conquer, Religious leader, Military Commander, President, Discoverer, Mountain man, etc. because they lived in a time wherein they shared the era's dubious values regarding family, sexuality, human rights, women's rights, religion, democracy, torture, war, slavery, etc.?

The present cannot dictate the past; what we can do is honor history and recognize those who represent the significant, the relevant, the memorable. A statue of Robert E. Lee no more represents slavery than a statue of the Tudor Queen Elizbeth represents the divine rights of royals or a statue of Martin Luthor represents the cause of anti-Semitism. They are acknowledged because each, in there own way, were unique and powerful agents of history who usually, in some manner, different than their contemporaries.

And it is that uniqueness and importance that provides the bridge to a people's history, the mystic cords of memory that bind into identity.

You missed the point of my post. There are many commemorative markers to not only honor the Southern soldiers, but many more acknowledging the Souths terrible history enslaving Africans. I believe those are much more fitting to recognize the error the Confederate soldiers died for. And yes, Lee fought for a regime hell bent on keeping slavery legel. You can claim its erasing history, BS. How about in place of Lees statues a memorial to all those Africans who died on the slave ships coming over to N America.

Unlike Germany which faces up to its past, the South still glorifies an Army which was fighting for an immoral cause. By 1860 the South was one of the few areas left in the world to allow slavery. It was well on its way out, but of course the Souths economy RELIED on slaves to prop up its economy. Often dollors over rule what is morally correct.

 

[jamesrage]

Confederates should be told to purchase the plots that the statues and monuments are located on and pay for their upkeep themselves.
Instead, taxpayers, even people of color, are being forced to pay for them.
That's my objection.

If I was a person of color living in a Confederate state and I had to walk by statues commemorating people who likely helped sell my ancestors on an auction block, it would be bad enough just seeing them every day, but at least if their admirers had to pay the upkeep I could tell myself it's their own business who they celebrate.

Imagine the Native Americans who have to look our money(especially the 20 dollar bill), the statues of our founders and our holidays. I bet those things serve as reminders to commemorate the people who slaughtered their ancestors, took their lands and tried to wipe them out. We should remove all the statues commemorating our founders and remove their faces from our money and stop celebrating the 4th of July and presidents day. We should also change all the streets,cities, schools and anything else named after founders and presidents all the way up to the 1970s when our government still tried to force native Americans to integrate and tried to wipe native American culture. Because those things serve as hateful reminders to the Native Americans whose ancestors were wiped out.

 

[Grokmaster]

You missed the point of my post. There are many commemorative markers to not only honor the Southern soldiers, but many more acknowledging the Souths terrible history enslaving Africans. I believe those are much more fitting to recognize the error the Confederate soldiers died for. And yes, Lee fought for a regime hell bent on keeping slavery legel. You can claim its erasing history, BS. How about in place of Lees statues a memorial to all those Africans who died on the slave ships coming over to N America.

Unlike Germany which faces up to its past, the South still glorifies an Army which was fighting for an immoral cause. By 1860 the South was one of the few areas left in the world to allow slavery. It was well on its way out, but of course the Souths economy RELIED on slaves to prop up its economy. Often dollors over rule what is morally correct.

Where is the Confederate monument "commemorating slavery"?

 

[Gaius46]

George Washington and every other Founding Father COMMITTED TREASON....and?

The South was trying to exercise its RIGHT to leave the union when it so desired.

There is no right to secede as we have no legal mechanism to leave the union. Washington, who has a statute in London btw, also committed treason. Both he and the rest of the founders and the confederates rolled the dice on treason. The Confederates lost.

 

[yankintx]

There is no right to secede as we have no legal mechanism to leave the union. Washington, who has a statute in London btw, also committed treason. Both he and the rest of the founders and the confederates rolled the dice on treason. The Confederates lost.

The Southern aplogist can go pound sand. They hide behind the States rights BS all they want. The South NEEDED slavery to prop up there economy, plain and simple. Think about that next time you sip on a mint julep while pondering the Old South.

 

[1751Texan]

George Washington and every other Founding Father COMMITTED TREASON....and?

The South was trying to exercise its RIGHT to leave the union when it so desired.

When did George Washington erect a Confederate monument?

There is no right for states to leave the union. In fact it states in the US Constitution that states are not allowed to form a confederacy of states.

Article I

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

States violated these and many more provisions in the Constitution in their unconstitutional confederation of states.


Constitution for the United States of America

 

[OldFatGuy]

Read it slower. Maybe divide the words into syllables.

Pay special attention to the words "slave trade". Sound them out if you need.

Every time you read or hear any words extolling a pimp as a human being with problems, a common source of discourse in out literature and media, you are reading or watching a slave trader. Every time you hear someone with pity in their voice for unlawful immigrants, you are hearing the slave trade being touted. Need I continue?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Do you know what the term "slave trade" means? Let's take it one word at a time. I think you're having problems with the second word: "trade". Do you know what trade means? Look it up. Then re read my correction of him and see if you can figure it out this time.

Do you understand?

 

[Tigerace117]

"The Betrayal of Mankind". Really? Drama Queen much?

What a pile of euphemistic bull****.

Most of the world practiced slavery then, and the cotton gin had already been invented here, so slavery was on the way out , anyway.


The South saw the Union as tyrannical, were typically more loyal to their STATES, and tried to exercise it right to leave, which it absolutely had, as an exercise of STATES' RIGHTS, per the 10th Amendment.

They lost the war over it. End of story.


Confederate monuments are part of our history. Why fear the past?

Yeah, that's complete and utter bull****. Brazil was the only country in the Americas to cling to slavery longer than the US. Even in 1860 they knew it was a great evil; the founding fathers who were slave owners even tried to ensure it would die out as quickly as possible.

There was no "right" to murder thousands of American soldiers and sailors to preserve slavery.

The cotton gin is what saved slavery bud. It made it profitable again. Up until that point slavery really was "on the way out".

Yes, the South went to war over a "state's right"; the fantasy that states had the the "right" to keep slavery.

 

[Tigerace117]

One thing is for sure, hounding those who support American nationalism and patriotism more than the hounders means the animosity of the howling had nothing to do with anger at traitors.

Supporting the Confederacy and white supremacy---as these monuments do---is the exact opposite of American nationalism or patriotism.