Finally some judicial sanity on Civil War memorials.

Howard the Duck said:
Um, no, they were not Americans. They formally seceded from America and ratified their own Constitution. They elected a president, vice president, senate and house of representatives. They established their own federal court system. Over the course of four years they adopted three distinct national flags.

Also, leftists taught me the standard canard about the secession being illegitimate and thus the southerners being Americans, etc. It seems that I am the only one who takes the arguments of southerners seriously.
Click to expand...

They fought to secede and lost. Nothing they wrote was implemented at any time. The Union stayed together, which was Lincoln's priority.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Um, no, they were not Americans. They formally seceded from America and ratified their own Constitution. They elected a president, vice president, senate and house of representatives. They established their own federal court system. Over the course of four years they adopted three distinct national flags.

Also, leftists taught me the standard canard about the secession being illegitimate and thus the southerners being Americans, etc. It seems that I am the only one who takes the arguments of southerners seriously.
Click to expand...

I take Southern Treason serious
 
Grumpy said:
Pretty fine line between destroying monuments you disagree with and burning books. But nice try at projection.
Click to expand...

No, there is no such fine line. It's miles wide. Not even remotely comparable to any rational adult.

Why do you support treason and traitors, whore?
 
RB 60 said:
They fought to secede and lost. Nothing they wrote was implemented at any time. The Union stayed together, which was Lincoln's priority.
Click to expand...

No, because the fighting didn't break-out until they stupidly attacked America. Lincoln didn't have a mandate to forcibly preserve the union until that happened.

Fun fact: The CSA Constitution established a limit on the presidency of a single six-year term of office.
 
Grumpy said:
Good point but I don't see how or why he jumped to the crusades when I was referring to the Taliban being just like the anti civil war memorial crowd. I guess it's because the left's brain is wired differently just like men and women are wired differently.
Click to expand...

I'm the one who brought up the Crusades while explaining that Islam has been at war with "the West" for centuries before this continent was even discovered. Howard did not. I think his point got missed. He is saying that monuments to southern Civil War leaders could be equivalent to monuments to famous Islamic war/jihad leaders. IOW, a statue of Robert E. Lee could be compared to a statue of Osama bin Laden. Both were enemies of the United States, in his comparison.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Um, no, they were not Americans. They formally seceded from America and ratified their own Constitution. They elected a president, vice president, senate and house of representatives. They established their own federal court system. Over the course of four years they adopted three distinct national flags.

Also, leftists taught me the standard canard about the secession being illegitimate and thus the southerners being Americans, etc. It seems that I am the only one who takes the arguments of southerners seriously.
Click to expand...

Using your logic there was no civil war but a war between the union and ex-states guess we must go back and change all the history books. But that is another matter. The real discussion is you and your ilk are acting like vigilantes and believe you are judge jury and spokesman for the nation as a whole. Most people don't even think about the war when seeing those monuments. Now to be fair I can see not having monuments to Jeb Davis and the other members of the Confederate Government. But to have a fit over a statue of Stonewall Jackson or Robert E lee is ridiculous in that they were great tacticians and set many standards for the way battles were fought at the time.


I honestly do not understand why liberals insist on applying modern day morals on people of bygone eras. Slavery in the 1700's was the norm throughout the world. In fact it exists to this day but I don't see liberals marching in the streets demanding nations take action against those that still practice that barbaric action.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm the one who brought up the Crusades while explaining that Islam has been at war with "the West" for centuries before this continent was even discovered. Howard did not. I think his point got missed. He is saying that monuments to southern Civil War leaders could be equivalent to monuments to famous Islamic war/jihad leaders. IOW, a statue of Robert E. Lee could be compared to a statue of Osama bin Laden. Both were enemies of the United States, in his comparison.
Click to expand...

The difference is one was a member of a nations (yes we could argue it's legitimacy) military, fighting an armed military force. Where as OBL was a terrorist who attacked and killed unarmed civilians. He was throwing a fit because I compared him to the Taliban. In my thinking there isn't much difference between destroying religious statues and civil war statues, simply because of a belief.
 
Grumpy said:
The difference is one was a member of a nations (yes we could argue it's legitimacy) military, fighting an armed military force. Where as OBL was a terrorist who attacked and killed unarmed civilians. He was throwing a fit because I compared him to the Taliban. In my thinking there isn't much difference between destroying religious statues and civil war statues, simply because of a belief.
Click to expand...

In your thinking, you support treason and honor traitors.
 
katzgar said:
I think if you actually walked past one and smell the urine it would answer your question about do people really care.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand your answer. I’m assuming you are referring to the thousands of homeless (due to failed policies of the Jack asses) that piss and shit in our streets and parks.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Um, no, they were not Americans. They formally seceded from America and ratified their own Constitution. They elected a president, vice president, senate and house of representatives. They established their own federal court system. Over the course of four years they adopted three distinct national flags.

Also, leftists taught me the standard canard about the secession being illegitimate and thus the southerners being Americans, etc. It seems that I am the only one who takes the arguments of southerners seriously.
Click to expand...

Then what was the name of this NEW country??
 
Tkaffen said:
I don’t understand your answer. I’m assuming you are referring to the thousands of homeless (due to failed policies of the Jack asses) that piss and shit in our streets and parks.
Click to expand...


making assumptions about stuff you dont understand is really stupid. Civil people pee on them as a form of protest.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm the one who brought up the Crusades while explaining that Islam has been at war with "the West" for centuries before this continent was even discovered. Howard did not. I think his point got missed. He is saying that monuments to southern Civil War leaders could be equivalent to monuments to famous Islamic war/jihad leaders. IOW, a statue of Robert E. Lee could be compared to a statue of Osama bin Laden. Both were enemies of the United States, in his comparison.
Click to expand...

Should this bias then also be extended to Mosques, seeing as how it's a "symbol" of Islamics?
 
Heff said:
This is a good idea. The urge to erase the past is totalitarian. Yet what Pol Pot did, by re-making the world and proclaiming Year Zero, is now the default setting of every social-justice nitwit.
Click to expand...

Do only statues represent what happened in the past? Taking down statues isn't erasing the past at all. They should be protected in a museum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top