Another confederate statue removed

ZILCHMONGER said:
What Northern cities did they attack? Would you consider the British attempting to breakaway from the European Union an act of war or treason? There is no fundamental difference between the South's actions in 1860 and the Brits today[/QUOTE
Charleston was part of the USA when treasonous fools attacked Ft Sumner
Click to expand...
 
LV426 said:
Denying what?
What is it that is "denied" by removing statues that glorify traitors?
Click to expand...
access ,out of sight out of mind. Failure to look at the individuals acts and deeds. promoting ignorance

Ah, so the original intent was to force the glorification of traitors down the throats of the people those same traitors fought to keep as slaves.
Click to expand...
since you've never read or attended a dedication ceremony -i refer you to such
 
dukkha said:
access ,out of sight out of mind. Failure to look at the individuals acts and deeds. promoting ignorance

since you've never read or attended a dedication ceremony -i refer you to such
Click to expand...


they are a public health problem, too many drunks pee on them
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The southern states wanted their own country and should have been allowed to have it. Yes, they should have been run over and demolished anyway--thank you, General Sherman--but then they should have been left to rebuild on their own, the dumb fucks. They're certainly a drain on the republic now, and actually, they can have the central plains states, too.
Click to expand...

Sherman is nothing more than a pussy that acted in a cowardly manner. Much like you, Kunta. Or do you prefer Toby?
 
It seems to me important to say that a proportion of Southern people voted for the break-away, but certainly not the forced-labouring masses those villains were exploiting, and to add that those who were fighting the abomination were concentrated in the North (it is relevant that two of my wife's Chartist ancestors went over to volunteer for the Union Army when the struggle here was, for the time being, dead). The comparison with the UK leaving the EU is relevant mainly because the whole business has shown the utter folly of taking political actions based on the votes of a bare, notional majority.
 
CFM said:
Yet you're not doing anything butt peeing on yourself. Go see a doctor and get some help. Hopefully he'll diagnose you with the same ass cancer that got BAC.
Click to expand...


It's all good I just peed on your grandma a little while ago
 
dukkha said:
access ,out of sight out of mind. Failure to look at the individuals acts and deeds. promoting ignorance
Click to expand...

So if a statue is removed, you'll forget who lost the Civil War?


since you've never read or attended a dedication ceremony -i refer you to such
Click to expand...

You didn't refer to anything, and the dedication ceremonies for those monuments was a celebration of white supremacy:

In front of Charlotte’s common soldier monument, dedicated in 1910, Judge Armistead Burwell admonished his audience to “be reminded by this silent soldier ... to protect from taint the Saxon blood that courses in your veins.” Eleven years later, in Caswell County, Chief Executive of the North Carolina Daughters of the Confederacy Mary Kerr Spencer declared, “We are proud of the fact that North Carolina has the finest and purest strain of Anglo-Saxon blood in the veins of her people on the American continent.” At a 1909 dedication, Gov.William Kitchin extolled whites for their subjugation of black Americans, Central Americans, Asians, Africans and Native Americans. In this project of global racial ordering, he proudly proclaimed, “the Confederate veteran has had his full share.”
https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

You're really, really bad at this.
 
MASON said:
Can't put treason monuments on public property
Click to expand...

Really? Then why is President Lincoln memorialized in Washington DC? Why is the Washington monument standing? Why the Jefferson memorial?

George Washington was a traitor to the British government, which claimed sovereignty over the colonists at the time. So was Jefferson.
Lincoln invaded a foreign nation and seized property (in violation of the 4th amendment), and started one of the bloodiest wars in history.

So what about these treason monuments? They are all on public property!
 
ZILCHMONGER said:
What was the root cause of the War Between the States?

Conventional wisdom holds that the War Between the States was waged over slavery. The South was populated by racist rednecks that hated black people and would fight to the death to keep them in captivity while Northerners were all Enlightened Academics believing in Freedom and Justice for all. As is most “conventional wisdom” this is incorrect. The Civil War was fought, as are most if not all wars, for economic reasons with slavery being a byproduct of the economics of the times.

The issues leading to the war actually began as a result of the War of 1812. The fledgling United States had lost most of its international trade during this conflict. Although after the war England wanted to resume business with the US new domestic producers had taken over their former markets. In order to protect the new manufacturers Congress in its infinite wisdom passed huge tariffs, up to 60%, on imported goods. Most of these US manufacturers were located in the Northern States with markets primarily local shipping little to the Southern States) with the South concentrating on cotton production, which by 1830 was fully half of the world production of the product. This meant most of the goods needed by the South had to come from abroad and was extremely expensive due to high tariffs. .

Slavery came into the picture because cotton production was very labor intensive and slaves provided cheap labor. In 1860 the value of slaves was 20% of the entire wealth of the United States. The primary reason Southern States wanted new states to be “slave states” was for the same contemporary reason Democrats want Puerto Rico and Washington DC (two areas highly dependent on government handouts) to become states and want to count illegal’s as part of the population, more representation in Congress. Keep in mind there was no legislative action to end slavery in those states it already existed. The movement was to keep it from expanding in the future

The South now had its back to the wall with high prices due to import tariffs and diminishing cotton markets as a result of retaliation for the high tariffs. It wanted to split from the Union in order to establish its own trade policies. Since the South was actually richer than the North at the time and forced to buy more imported goods they provided higher tax revenues to the Federal government.

Thus, by favoring the North over the South we came to the root causes of the Civil War, potential economic ruin of the South. This was borne out in that after the war the South’s per capita income was only 50% of that in the North, a condition that lasted for almost 100 years after the war’s end.
Click to expand...

The so-called 'Civil War' wasn't (a civil war). I was a War of Secession.

A civil war is where two or more factions vie for control of the government. The South wanted to leave the Union, not take it over. At the time the War started, the South had become it's own independent nation. Like any nation, it decided to defend itself. There is no treason in that!

Slaves were a real issue. It's a big part of the reason that Lincoln was elected President to begin with. He wanted to end slavery (a good thing!). He just went about it the wrong way (a bad thing!). You are correct in pointing out that the movement to end slavery has components that would simply leave the existing slave States alone, but there were also those within that movement (including Lincoln himself) that wanted to outlaw it every, even in the slave States.

But slaves were property, bought and paid for. This property was being seized by the federal government, with NO compensation to the owners of that property. This violates the 4th and 5th amendments. Today, it also would violate the 14th amendment (which wasn't in force at the time).

Why the slaves were used in the economy of the South is certainly factors in causing the War of Secession. You are quite right about that.
 
CFM said:
The history books want to teach it was about slavery and try to present history as every southerner owned slaves. It's not true.
Click to expand...

Quite right. It was about a lot of things. Economy, property rights (here Lincoln violated the 4th and 5th amendments, tariffs levied against individual States (violations of equal taxation clauses in the Constitution), and of course the invasion of the Union into the Confederacy (a separate nation at the time).
 
MASON said:
Gosh I'm shocked that you're pro-Confederate,anti-USA
Click to expand...

False dichotomy fallacy. The Confederacy was a union of States also, but under their own constitution. At the time, there were TWO Unites States of America (and many territories) in what we today call the USA. That's if you don't count the indian nations and confederacies.

The Union invaded the Confederacy. They tried to arm and supply a fort in a foreign nation without that nation's consent. That's what set off the War. The South was right to defend itself.

If the Union has simply let the Confederacy be, there would not have been a war at all, and slavery would've died out on its own (it was already dying as an institution).
 
MASON said:
Read a fucking history book moron
Click to expand...

He did. So have I. There are many governmental records and diaries that exist from that period. What you learned in school about the so-called 'Civil War' is wrong.
* It wasn't a civil war. A civil war is two or more factions vying for control of the government. The South wanted to LEAVE, not take over the Union.
* A State has the right to secede from the Union and cease to be a State of the Union. When it does so, it can either become an independent nation on it's own, or join other States in their own constitution (which is what the South did).
* The slave question was certainly prominent, but it was not the reason the the South fought the war. Most southerners didn't own slaves. Some black men owned slaves as well. There were also free black men in the South.
* At the time the United States was founded, quite a few Northerners owned slaves. One by one these States passed laws to end slavery in them. Existing slave owners either freed their slaves, moved to a slave State, or sold their slaves in a slave State. Slavery was already dying out as an institution in the United States (including the slave States).
* Diaries all across the South talk of property rights and State sovereignty, not slaves. Many that wrote in these diaries didn't even own slaves, yet they fought a vicious war to defend the South, and willingly.
* History books don't fuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top