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.
based on your views (checked a few posts of your just now) I'm 100% sure you are an example of it
I can see both sides of the debate on Lee, I don't give a darn about it. If there was no agenda that is being pushed I would not care, if they were going to be removed and I would be the deciding vote to stop them from being removed I would not stop them from being removed. I understand why those want to keep it and why those want to remove them.
But anyone who makes Robert E Lee their second biggest problem after Jefferson Davis, and many have more of a problem with him than Davis himself, this is exactly what I am referring to.
the woke left, can not have a rational conversation about anything that touches race relations.
They are also making racism grow and go on for another generation with their behavior. How do you think Whiteys feel being made to apologize for so called "White Privilege", My grandfathers brother actually died from starvation in Russia, I will never apologize for things that I am not either personally responsible for or even collectively responsible for. And no I don't think slavery was the worst sin of America, FDR actively trying to stop Jews escaping from the Nazis from being killed was infinitely worse (for example he stopped the Dominican Republic from accepting 100,000 German Jews). The hatred you have for Robert E Lee statues is nothing compared to the hatred I have for the FDR memorial in Washington, but I also understand that many Americans think he did a lot of good for other reasons that have nothing to do with him being a mass murderer.
I understand you trying to get rid of the statute and have no problem if it was solely for the fact that his actions of fighting for his state would have kept your ancestors in bondage, however making up garbage that Lee was comparable to a Hitler, even if I would insanely think slavery was worse than the Holocaust is ludicrous. There is an agenda pushing this garbage and this mob think of the left is dangerous and destructive.
Slavery was not the cornerstone of the Confederacy.
According to Confederate Vice President Stephens, it was. Made a famous speech to that effect. Are you saying this Southern Gentleman lied? By Jove, if he was still alive he'd send his stableboys around to rough you up!
According to Confederate Vice President Stephens, it was. Made a famous speech to that effect. Are you saying this Southern Gentleman lied? By Jove, if he was still alive he'd send his stableboys around to rough you up!
The Civil War was not primarily about slavery. Please get educated. It was about economic dominance by the NORTH. The Civil War was to end States Rights to a large extent and it worked. Slavery would have been ended without the Civil War and all those needless deaths of both sides.
If I was going to argue that point, I'd probably have typed those words. What I typed was that slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy, and I have that on the highest authority. (OK, second-highest - he was only vice president. Fine.) Secession was about slavery, and we know that, because the Southern Gentlemen were kind enough to write it down as the reason in their Secession declarations.
The Civil War was over secession. Secession was over slavery.
Quote:
Slavery would have been ended without the Civil War...
Not if the Confederacy had anything to say about it. They founded their nation on the premise of continuation of slavery. And again, they were kind enough to say so, we're not forced to speculate or imply. The pro-slavery faction in the US was losing influence and set to lose more, and they were not having that.
And they completely expected a war over it, they just hadn't any idea of what would happen when an agrarian society meets an industrial one. (Also overplayed their hand on the cotton monopoly.)
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-05-2020 at 02:30 PM..
Really? I bet you didn't take that part of American History when the Confederate Constitution was taught. Or if you did, here is a little refresher:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."
If you want to further educate yourself, this article shows actual quotes that yes, it was all about slavery, by the confederate traitors who said them.
Interesting how Texas expressed itself as to why they wanted to be a Confederate State:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”
Do you want me to go on, or are you now more knowledgeable than before this post?
Nice try mister virtue signaler SJW, but you still didn't address that the Civil War was mainly about the North's economic dominance of the South. Also, it was an illegal war started by the North. For Sumpter? LOL!!!
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,085,392 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
The Civil War was not primarily about slavery. Please get educated. It was about economic dominance by the NORTH. The Civil War was to end States Rights to a large extent and it worked. Slavery would have been ended without the Civil War and all those needless deaths of both sides.
The war was originally about economics among other things not necessarily "dominance by the NORTH" or to "end States Rights" even your history knowledge reads like it came from Brightbart. The South started the war, the South lost the war, the South doesn't get to write the history. I always like the slavery would have ended argument that's why we had Jim Crow and the rest of the systems in place to oppress & restrict blacks and keep them as second class citizens without calling them slaves.
The statues can go to a museum there are enough memorials to those who served on both sides in the cemeteries
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.
