Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dunno I've never been to the South except Miami and D.C. in TX and AZ there are some i've seen though.
There are plenty of Abraham Lincoln statues in the South - I posted photos of about 25 different ones.
The reason there are no statues of Jefferson Davis and other confederate generals/politicians...they aren't American heroes. What did they do for the United States and why would there be any memorial to any of them outside of their birthplace or maybe the state that they represented? Their claim to fame was orchestrating the attempted demise of the United States, and I don't think that makes them heroes - famous maybe, but definitely not heroes.
Robert E. Lee was already an accomplished officer in the U.S. Army prior to the Civil War as well as an engineer in the Army Corps. He was also not in suppprt of slavery and was opposed to the confederacy, but was simply caught up on the wrong side of a bad situation. I can see why there may be some memorials to Lee outside of the South. There were other confederate leaders as well who didn't support slavery and weren't so angry and outspoken over the whole thing - Stonewall Jackson for one.
Agreed. The OP is taking a break due to having started a couple of threads that seem to encourage unhealthy debates, rather than discussion. It's good for folks to realize the difference between the two, 'cause we don't like unhealthy stuff around here (well, except doughnuts).
He was the president of the nation in which you now live. Calling him a traitor is unpatriotic.
Lincoln was the hero of the entire situation. The traitors were the ones who tried to break up the United States...believe me, most of us understand this fact.
I'm not sure it's necessarily unpatriotic to dislike or criticize a past or current president (I've done it countless times over the recent 8 years), but it certainly isn't right to call Lincoln a "traitor" either.
Lincoln was the hero of the entire situation. The traitors were the ones who tried to break up the United States...believe me, most of us understand this fact.
I'm not sure it's necessarily unpatriotic to dislike or criticize a past or current president (I've done it countless times over the recent 8 years), but it certainly isn't right to call Lincoln a "traitor" either.
The Confederates were doing the same thing our founding fathers did, and a right under the 10th Amendment. I think it can be summed up with the following famous statement:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I don't see why anyone would be surprised that compared to the North there are comparatively fewer statues of Lincoln in the deep South, who had 600,000 people killed to force an unwanted government on the South, and more statues of Confederate heroes there than in the North. Not sure what the point of this thread really was (and no I haven't read all of it yet).
It is likely that the North and the South - not to mention some independent states would have broken off (like Texas) would have been balanced off against each other by other great powers. Other great powers including Germany, Japan, China and Russia. It would still be happening. Its called the balance of power in foreign affairs.
In any case a divided United States would not have been able to build up its armed forces so quickly in WW2 or create a navy or air force big enough to contain the Soviet Union.
It of course did not happen so its all academic. But several writers have written alternate history books about it - one of which I read - has the North and the South fighting each other as part of WW1!
Ooh, I love doing "what if's" in history (I am a historian by education afterall!). If the South won, I strongly suspect one of three things would have happened with regards to WWI: either A) neither side got involved and then a more fair/balanced end would have come to WWI resulting in Hitler never coming to power and likely no WWII, or B) both sides would be allied together and result in roughly the same thing that actually happened, or finally, C) one side or the other would get involved on one side of the war in Europe, and the other either not at all or on the opposite side.
Lincoln was the hero of the entire situation. The traitors were the ones who tried to break up the United States...believe me, most of us understand this fact.
Well, I disagree with you there, Deacon.
Lincoln did what he felt he had to do, and was a man of iron will. And I will even go so far as to say Reconstruction might not have been so harsh and vindictive had he lived. But that doesn't necessarily make him a hero.
Quote:
I'm not sure it's necessarily unpatriotic to dislike or criticize a past or current president (I've done it countless times over the recent 8 years), but it certainly isn't right to call Lincoln a "traitor" either.
And in turn, I agree with you here...to some extent! LOL
I am NO admirer of Lincoln. Not at all. I simply can't fathom this latter day "deification" of the man. Far as I am concerned, he was responsible for starting the War.
BUT...he was a was NOT a traitor. I have to give him credit for standing by his taken position and for at least saying what he meant and arguing his case like a man. Richmonder didn't do any great credit to the historical cause of the South by his post...
At the same time though, the people of the South were NOT traitors either. They simply decided to seperate themselves from a political connection with the northern states. And after it was all over, even the staunchest and vindictive of radicals frankly admitted that if a case of treason were to be brought about, then the North would stand "beaten and defeated"
Lincoln was the hero of the entire situation. The traitors were the ones who tried to break up the United States...believe me, most of us understand this fact.
I'm not sure it's necessarily unpatriotic to dislike or criticize a past or current president (I've done it countless times over the recent 8 years), but it certainly isn't right to call Lincoln a "traitor" either.
They weren't trying to break up the USA. They wanted their own nation!
Independence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
