Where Progressives are going with the statue removals

For me the distinction is are they loyal to the United States or loyal to the Confederacy people loyal to the Confederacy don't deserve a monument

 

It is hardly a pretense. Slavery ended in the New World everywhere by 1880's with no violence (except in Haiti).

 

Inedd, If those who turned on the United States, rejected the Constitution of the United States, and fought and killed United States soldiers to perpetuate the vile practice and extend it into new territories, had only known their cause would soon be rendered obsolete by a pervasive moral progress, they might have realized the futility of their Declarations of Causes, and never have attacked the United States military at Fort Sumter.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens proclaimed, in Savannah, on March 21,1861 that,

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions — African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution...

The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong."
​

His rejection of the moral wisdom of the Founding Fathers had horrific consequences for the nation, so much blood shed in an immoral cause.

A modicum of prescience and resignation to the inevitable would have avoided the spot of bother.

 

If the Northerners had relaxed and not pressed the South it would not have needed to raise an army of unwilling conscripts to attack the South.

I see the fault as clearly on the abolitionists for this needless war.

You should stop your moral grandstanding and recognize the culpability of the North.

 

Your self-serving revisionism fails on a factual basis.

In Lincoln's inaugural speech on March 4, 1861, he declared, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

The United States military at Fort Sumter were attacked on April 12, 1861.

 

1. Lee is looked upon unfavorably by most. You're in the minority.

2. President Lincoln did the right thing.

3. MLK wasn't as saintly as you are, but we remember great men despite their flaws.

 

The media forms public attitudes. And the Media is hard core to the far left. I recall when it was center for the most part. So the public perception of Lee can be falling.

Abe went to war. Abe did wrong. This is this nations far worst all time war to date. Blood flowed like rivers.

MLK appears to have lied about Barry Goldwater per the Stanford site dedicated to King. He was very extremely bigoted against Goldwater and this is fact.

 

Are you kidding? What made you come up with that insult?

 

Imagine Abe had modern tanks. And someplace, people using .22 cal rifles fired at the closed up tank. They could not hurt anybody inside the tank no matter how many shots they fired.

Sumter was that tank. It was such good protection Anderson had none of his troops injured.

But Abe invaded VA.

Dumb man. Caused the ripple in history lasting to this very day. Abe could have cooled his jets and tried for diplomacy.

 

Michael Savage wrote a good book that explains Democrats minds. While this sounds general, I mean it to Democrats that have a one sided view of the civil war. They never stop to look over what the South had done first. They refuse to bring up how the South voted. I don't mean in the presidents election, but their own elections in their states. Some states rejected leaving the union. But a good number of the grand total of states did vote to leave. What they callously believe is once a state, you are never allowed to ever escape. Founders laid out the path to leaving the union and the South followed it.

There was no violence in the leaving. Sumter is the modern issue for people who can't grasp that once you leave the union, union forts do not belong on your land. I see why the South wanted all Federal forts emptied out. Why vote to leave the union to have union forces inside your state?


That would make no sense at all.

 

Slavery was quite the comfy sinecure in your dreams.

If you were regarded as subhuman and bought and sold by the US military, your family members also bought and sold, and you were treated as property, shackled, whipped, and raped with impunity by your self-appointed masters, allowed no prospect of ever bettering your lot (let alone being guaranteed assistance in the effort,) I can understand how you might equate the privilege of serving in the United States armed forces with the plight of a slave in the ante-bellum South.

You should be designing recruitment posters.

 

None of this changes the fact that if a government refuses to take down a given status, you DO have to suffer through it.

 

Washington was a "good" slave owner?

 

And thus, great generals are great generals, regardless who they fought for.

 

You have to defer to the democratic will, as in all such public decisions, of course. That does not preclude petitioning to remove existing offensive public monuments, nor from petitioning to erect new ones.

 

So, you agree - your statement is incorrect in that you may very well have to suffer said statues.

 

I have made no suggestion of "suffering", nor do I intend to suffer.

Whether you suffer the presence or absence of offensive monuments is your business

 

MY apologies. You said "endure".
So, you agree - your statement is incorrect in that you may very well have to endure said statues.

 

That disgusting post by Robert is truly mindblowing.

Gawd.

 

What a pile of bullshit.

The South fired the first shots and stole federal property all across the south and were committing Acts of War months before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

 

It was doubly appalling - in equating slavery to service in the US military, and in equating service in the US military to slavery.

Still, he has exposed where he is coming from.

 

The south was itching and planning to go to war years before Lincoln. Any republican president being elected would bring forth, in their words (1856) " a carnival of blood."

And FYI: More than 96% of the Union Army were volunteers, not conscripts./

 

He's done that for some time now, but it's getting progressively worse. Talk about scraping at the bottom of swamp neo-confederate barrel.

 

The rabid revisionism is rendered ridiculous by the record.

Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, had offered reassurance to the slave states in no uncertain terms: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

The United States was attacked, at Fort Sumter, April 10, 1861.

 

At West Point they teach the Southerners lobbing cannons on Union ship Star of the West in early January as the actual start of the war, albeit unofficial.

Course, even before that, starting in late 1860, they were aggressively hostile, seizing federal property all across the south. Property that belonged to all the country.