New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Gee Gary, you should know that even though I am old, I'm not THAT old.

 

So, they called it the "Civil War." What do you think they'll call the next one CWII? They'd have to rename the Civil War to the First Civil War.

Better we call it the "War Between the Hates."

 

Has a nice ring to it, donchathink?

i suppose the history books will call CWII, "The Fight Against Idiocracy".

[Chef Jim]

9 hours ago, Foxx said:

i suppose the history books will call CWII, "The Fight Against Idiocracy".

No it will be CWR “Clearly We’re Right”. Who doesn’t want to go through history with that title? 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Chef Jim

[/dev/null]

On 12/24/2019 at 1:01 PM, Foxx said:

i suppose the history books will call CWII, "The Fight Against Idiocracy".

CWI is remembered as the Blue vs The Grey

 

CWII will be remembered as snowflakes with blue check marks vs rednecks with AR15s

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

CWI is remembered as the Blue vs The Grey

 

CWII will be remembered as snowflakes with blue check marks vs rednecks with AR15s

CWII will end two seconds after the first serious exchange with the blues surrendering 

[DC Tom]

15 minutes ago, row_33 said:

CWII will end two seconds after the first serious exchange with the blues surrendering 

 

CWII will end in a week when the left surrenders after Starbucks runs out of soy milk due to the Red State embargo of soybeans against the coastal cities.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

CWII will end in a week when the left surrenders after Starbucks runs out of soy milk due to the Red State embargo of soybeans against the coastal cities.

talk is tough, taking on the military’s might and about 200 dead in ten seconds will end it

 

 

 

[Pilsner]

Bring back the gallows.....................for the survivors.

 

These cretins aren’t trying to secede. They want to utterly destroy our way of life forever.

 

I honestly hope a Civil War 2.0 does not happen. But if it does it does.  At the very least the crooked higher ups need to be held accountable. No quarter for the evil scum. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Pilsner

[/dev/null]

7 hours ago, Pilsner said:

Bring back the gallows.....................for the survivors.

 

These cretins aren’t trying to secede. They want to utterly destroy our way of life forever.

 

I honestly hope a Civil War 2.0 does not happen. But if it does it does.  At the very least the crooked higher ups need to be held accountable. No quarter for the evil scum. 

So in victory you would behave like those you had just defeated?

 

Regardless of what happens I never want to fall down into the bitter mindset of "line them up against the wall" common among the Left

 

That's what makes a Libertaririan revolution so scary for some, because if we ever took over we plan to just leave you alone

[Pilsner]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

So in victory you would behave like those you had just defeated?

 

Regardless of what happens I never want to fall down into the bitter mindset of "line them up against the wall" common among the Left

 

That's what makes a Libertaririan revolution so scary for some, because if we ever took over we plan to just leave you alone

 

No. I didn’t mean for all survivors. That’s obviously extreme. I meant for some of the worst who managed to get away. The worst of the worst. They can have their day in court and if it’s deserved, then they can have a date with the gallows. I wouldn’t want to fall into the ‘bitter mindset’ of the left either. 

[row_33]

Still floors me how Lincoln aimed to preserve the Union and welcome back the states without mass imprisonment or execution 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

Still floors me how Lincoln aimed to preserve the Union and welcome back the states without mass imprisonment or execution 

 

Much different, more respectful culture.  

 

The North hated Confederate generals far, far less than we do today.   Consider the North's memorialization of Stonewall Jackson...

 

Quote

 

n the North there was widespread admiration for Jackson, for both his Christian piety and his warrior prowess. Harper’s Weekly described him as “an honorable and conscientious man” who had hesitated to take sides until secession forced his hand. British author and America watcher Catherine Cooper Hopley wrote that Northerners “pride themselves that he was a fellow citizen of the republic, an American, independent of northern or southern birth."

 

There were signs everywhere of the immense respect people of the North had for Jackson’s bravery and skill as a soldier. “I rejoice at Stonewall Jackson’s death as a gain to our cause,” wrote Union brigadier general Gouverneur K. Warren, soon to be a hero of the Battle of Gettysburg, “and yet in my soldier’s heart I cannot but see him as the best soldier of all this war, and grieve at his untimely end.” Wrote Union veteran and historian Charles Francis Adams Jr., “I am sure as Americans this [Union] army takes a pride in ‘Stonewall’ second only to that of the Virginians and Confederates. To have fought against him is next to having fought under him.”

 

Northern feelings about Jackson were perhaps best summarized by John W. Forney, the prominent editor of the Washington Chronicle. “Stonewall Jackson was a great general, a brave soldier, a noble Christian, and a pure man. May God throw these great virtues against the sins of the secessionist, the advocate of a great national crime.”

 

 

https://erenow.net/biographies/rebelyellstonewalljackson/47.php

 

Imagine any of that being said now about him.

 

There was a much greater sense then that the Civil War was "Americans fighting Americans," rather than now, of "Americans fighting evil traitorous bastards."

Edited December 27, 2019 by DC Tom

[billsfan89]

On 12/18/2015 at 8:49 AM, Chef Jim said:

Why do you consider them trash?

 

Shall they be removed from history books as well?

 

Why are you and others so offended and/or threatened by our history?

 

Ooooooh questions...........

 

Would you blame Germany for tearing down statues of Nazi generals and placing them in museums? The Confederacy is literally a rebellion against the USA, why should they be memorialized? The analogue that removing statues from public spaces is akin to not teaching history makes no sense. 

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Would you blame Germany for tearing down statues of Nazi generals and placing them in museums? The Confederacy is literally a rebellion against the USA, why should they be memorialized? The analogue that removing statues from public spaces is akin to not teaching history makes no sense. 

What do you think would have happened to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and other founding fathers if the southern campaign that the Brits waged was successful and Britain won that war? What would you think if a statue of one of those founders was being protested against by the Tory loyalists? 

 

The Krauts didn’t have many statues/images of their generals. They had plenty of Hitler, but the Communists destroyed those in the East. Allied troops brought home many of those in the West. 

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Would you blame Germany for tearing down statues of Nazi generals and placing them in museums? The Confederacy is literally a rebellion against the USA, why should they be memorialized? The analogue that removing statues from public spaces is akin to not teaching history makes no sense. 

Maybe you could also explain how Andersonville was worse than Auschwitz. 

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, Nanker said:

What do you think would have happened to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and other founding fathers if the southern campaign that the Brits waged was successful and Britain won that war? What would you think if a statue of one of those founders was being protested against by the Tory loyalists? 

 

The Krauts didn’t have many statues/images of their generals. They had plenty of Hitler, but the Communists destroyed those in the East. Allied troops brought home many of those in the West. 

 

I don't get why the Confederacy is this thing of value for conservatives who claim to love the USA but then want proud public displays of people who were in open rebellion against the USA because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery (yes the Civil War was about the states right of slavery, all the propaganda, transcribed speeches and Confederate declarations before and during the war all mention preserving the institution of slavery, it was only after the war these economic issues and "states rights" arguments were fashioned to make the South feel better.) 

 

Hating on the Confederacy should be something that units everyone left and right. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I don't get why the Confederacy is this thing of value for conservatives who claim to love the USA but then want proud public displays of people who were in open rebellion against the USA because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery (yes the Civil War was about the states right of slavery, all the propaganda, transcribed speeches and Confederate declarations before and during the war all mention preserving the institution of slavery, it was only after the war these economic issues and "states rights" arguments were fashioned to make the South feel better.) 

 

Hating on the Confederacy should be something that units everyone left and right. 

It’s not about the confederacy as much as it’s about destroying/erasing history. Doing so always leads to a repeat of the mistakes of the past. 
 

[Nanker]

15 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I don't get why the Confederacy is this thing of value for conservatives who claim to love the USA but then want proud public displays of people who were in open rebellion against the USA because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery (yes the Civil War was about the states right of slavery, all the propaganda, transcribed speeches and Confederate declarations before and during the war all mention preserving the institution of slavery, it was only after the war these economic issues and "states rights" arguments were fashioned to make the South feel better.) 

 

Hating on the Confederacy should be something that units everyone left and right. 

Not everyone who lived in the South in that time period owned slaves. 

Conservatives promote choice, individual accountability, and the right of self determination. They do not care for a heavy-handed central government, but a more lose federal system that doesn't have all the power located in Washington. 

 

Hate all you want. You won't be a better person for it.

 

 

[Keukasmallies]

33 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Maybe you could also explain how Andersonville was worse than Auschwitz. 

 

I'm waiting to read that comparison/contrast response  too!

[billsfan89]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It’s not about the confederacy as much as it’s about destroying/erasing history. Doing so always leads to a repeat of the mistakes of the past. 
 

 

You're presenting the idea that the only way to teach history is to have statues displayed and glorified in public spaces. That is a false dichotomy. You can put the statues in various civil war museums thus not deleting them out of existence. Also these statues were erected in the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements. These aren't statues commemorating history right after the war ended. Thus the idea they preserve any sort of history is silly. 

 

Do Confederate documents and manuscripts have to be on public display for them to be a valid tool for teaching history? Or is having them preserved in archives and photographed/scanned digitally enough. Putting statues and memorials in public spaces glorifies them in a way that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I wouldn't tell a Jewish person that a statue to Himler shouldn't be taken down because there is no way to teach that history without that statue being in a public place. 

[billsfan89]

8 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Not everyone who lived in the South in that time period owned slaves. 

Conservatives promote choice, individual accountability, and the right of self determination. They do not care for a heavy-handed central government, but a more lose federal system that doesn't have all the power located in Washington. 

 

Hate all you want. You won't be a better person for it.

 

 

 

Not everyone in the South owned slaves. But the propaganda to get the common person to fight was about slavery. Your average poor Southerner was not going to fight a war about tariffs or some more obscure idea that only impacted the elite. But tell them that this is about preserving the place of the white man in society and suddenly you have an emotional idea that they would be willing to fight and defend their homeland for. The Confederate leaders knew what they were doing in putting the slavery issue at the center of their propaganda and speeches before and during the war. To think that statues built to commemorate people fighting for the institution of slavery should be glorified in public spaces as a means to preserve history is stupid. 

 

Also the calls for these statues to be taken down are often coming from Local groups and communities. It isn't some mandate coming down from outside these communities. The issues was started and raised by those in the community who find those statues offensive. So the argument is who in those communities is right? The people that want the statues put into museumes or those who want to keep up statues of those who fought in open rebellion against the USA for the purposes of preserving the institution of slavery?