Union soldier's statues!

Sure you can put some in the Museum’s but those that are not, leave there where they are so people will THINK.

We need hard thought in the US on the subject of slavery, what was it REALLY like out of the farm, life is far from as bad as depicted by the left. I did a research paper on this in college and it changed my thinking in a lot of ways.

Blacks should stand TALL on the subject, instead they belittle and deny their contribution. They played a prominent role and few know or even understand it.

As for slavery, it was on the way out. Mechanical farming was on the way in and what the Civil War did was to delay industrialization which would have freed the slaves. It would have and could have occurred without a war.

1 Like

That doesn’t matter; it wasn’t always a bad experience for people on collectvist farms, or forced relocation in Soviet Russia.

To this day, people in their 90s who were personally victimized in the soviet collectivist efforts will still defend Joseph Stalin’s efforts as correct.

<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id=“yn7Yh78h4dg” data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>

It doesn’t change that these systems were dehumanizing and wrong.

It isn’t simply about how people were physically treated, but how the system mentally conditions people to view themselves.

What shall we do with Stone Mountain? https://goo.gl/images/hVivVa

2 Likes

Indeed a good question. I have been wondering about that since this remove statues and flags foolishness started. :grin:

Incidentally, I’ve lived in Georgia, and I’ve seen Stone mountain.

It can either be wiped away, left to wither away on its own (this would take between 20-30 years) or be cut out of the mountain, likely a piece at a time, and be put somewhere else.

Nope. That’s not why most were fighting. Blacks fought for the confederacy also, and were not forced to do so.
This wasn’t a war about moral ethics, it was about economic oppression. Without industry, the South had only agriculture. The North was structuring laws and trade deals that wouldn’t let the Southern states expand into industries controlled by the North.

Also, those leader’s statues, and all Confederate soldiers were given US Veteran status and should be treated as such. While they aren’t heroes to northerners, they were to the Southern citizens. They were often much more aligned towards freedom than their northern counterparts.

Just an aside, the invention of the steam tractor invalidated slavery anyway. Had the South been allowed more industry and development, the usefulness of slavery would have expired much more quickly on it’s own.

2 Likes

With respect, it’s right there in each of the states respective Succession statements,that yes, it is why.

Take Mississippi for instance ( and this is how it starts):

> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
>
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
>
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slaverythe greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Reading in surrounding circumstances for what fed into the Southerner’s anger is important, I’ll grant, but since they outright stated that Slavery is their cause, I’ll be gracious enough to believe them.

> Also, those leader’s statues, and all Confederate soldiers were given US Veteran status

No, that’s not how memorial status of statues work, and status bequeathed to Confederate soldiers, does not count towards political officials. We didn’t even give back the latter’s citizenship until the 1970s. They enjoy no such special protections.

I’m all for letting Confederate flags hang in cemeteries; that’s the due respect you pay towards soldiers of all places of origin. But public spaces, in places of honor, is another matter because they so closely identified themselves and their cause with slavery, and maintaining “racial purity” of the white race.

It’s written in their own documents, in their own words. You can’t force people to look past that.

That is not why **people **fought for the South. That is one of the many reasons the state governments seceded from the union. It was not just Slavery.
Slavery was a part, but it was only a part. Economic oppression was the reason. Slavery was a tool used in agriculture.

It’s the only reason Virginia *** bothers*** to give in their declaration, it appears in 15 of the 19 paragraphs in the Georgia one, and every single one of these declarations identifies with the moniker “Slave-holding states”.

Texas succession declaration outright states their ideological basis:

> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law

> That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Denial of natural law; that is what this is. It rejects John Locke, it rejects the equality of men, all to make an appeal to racial determinism, and all the while citing it as God’s design.

This is a cancerous idea, and it deserves to be stamped out.

So what? I too have lived in Georgia. Such information is of no use in a discussion of this nature so why did you bring it up. Oh yeah, I have figured it out - a distraction.

> It can either be wiped away, left to wither away on its own (this would take between 20-30 years) or be cut out of the mountain, likely a piece at a time, and be put somewhere else.
I have a news flash for you. The unfinished carving into the face of the rock will not wither away on its own in 20 to 30 years. Wanna try to impress us again? Perhaps on a different subject.

1 Like

I’m basically telling you that I know your apologetics; and I’m not convinced by them.

Everything Devilneck brought up is something I already knew, asnd all of it fails to dissuade why the objection to these monuments exist.

The ideological underpinning of the Confederacy is something you can never talk your way past. It wasn’t incidental, it wasn’t tertiary, it was front and center to what they fought for, and they claimed anything else ran contrary to God’s design.

They damned themselves with such ideas. Playing devil’s advocate gets you no where.

> I have a news flash for you. The unfinished carving into the face of the rock will not wither away on its own in 20 to 30 years.

20-30 is a ball park estimate for when you’d no longer be able to tell whose face is on there, I estimated based on what I know goes into maintaining Mt. Rushmore.

> Wanna try to impress us again?

Impress? I don’t give a damn. You’re defending the indefensible.

See, what’s happening here is that I’m not buying your entitlement speal. I don’t care about this “heritage”, nor do I have a single reason to. It is as disgusting to me as progressivism; it’s just as cynical, and just as toxic.

But worst of all, it’s you forcing me to pay for it in the form of Federalized monument status. Which is complete BS.

I’ll happily give the men a grave. I do not owe them anything else.

And Lincolns own words proclaimed that the ‘union’ was not fighting to end slavery, but to exert the dominance of the national government over the states. From his letter to Horace Greely: " If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." A ‘union’ where one party is dragged back kicking and screaming against their will. Yeah.

I would like to know, where in the constitution is a provision that prohibits states from leaving, declares that signing on to it is ‘in perpetuity’, or permits the nation government to compel continuing membership of states? Because if it ain’t there (and I have never seen it), the 10th amendment is pretty damned clear in what it says. Now who’s defending the indefensible?

1 Like

General McClellan didn’t believe him.

And btw, this is deflection.

The topic was never about what union was doing; it’s whether people can have a legitimate grievance against these statues being displayed.

Clearly they can, because we know that Confederate’s cause was an dehumanizing ideology that infantilized non-white Americans, yet had the audacity to claim it was anointed by God.

If people can’t object to lunacy like that, then you’re no better than the idiots who say we can’t object to people building monuments to Islam.

Equally, you know damn well know that you don’t have a reason for why anyone should be forced to pay for these memorials with our taxes.

  1. So what? Most of the men fighting for the south were not fighting to preserve slavery, but to preserve states rights. McClellan wasn’t in charge, so he gets tarred with brush of Lincolns tyranny, just like every southerner gets tarred with the brush of slavery, even those who opposed it. That’s fair isn’t it?

  2. Just the other side of the coin.

  3. Defund the Lincoln memorial, all the statues of Grant and Sherman, plow Gettysburg and Chancellorsville monuments under and you’ll have a valid argument.

1 Like

While we’re tearing down the monuments to slavery, we should also tear down the the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, Mt. Vernon, Independence Hall, statues of all the founders (opposed to slavery or not, they signed off on the Constitution that allowed it) and Washington D.C. itself. We should only be allowed to have statues of perfect men, after all, and any nation that’s ever had anything to do with slavery should cease to exist.

2 Likes

Too bad, even if I bought that excuse, the average fighting man isn’t who had the monuments made of them. It was the leadership like Jefferson Davis who lead the charge for slavery. He advocated the same racial determinism as the Texans.

By laying down their lives to defend slavery, they made themselves symbols of it. You can’t deny this, you can’t ignore it, and unlike how you try to invoke the Founders cause, slavery wasn’t an incidental or peripheral issue for them, it was front & center **by their own admission. **

> “‘ Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork.” - Southern Punch. 1864

Your relativism thus, fails. You cannot defend their words, and you cannot defend making me or anyone else who objects to them, pay for monuments of such men and their despicable cause.

Bury them.

And the men of the north fought for the tyranny of of the national government over the states. They laid down their lives for it, and we are still living under it to this day. No amount of justification ever excuses that, either.

2 Likes

Reference Alaska Slim post #31 —:coffee_spray:

Oh wow! I do wonder just who you are addressing. You do seem to have me confused with someone else. However you did walk into this conversation showing some lack of knowledge that requires no speculation. You see I mentioned the carving on the face of Stone Mountain was unfinished. It was unfinished the last time I visited the viewing area but since then it has been completed, to the best of my knowledge, and from the look of it in photographs a very nice job at that. You should have picked up on that and called me on my “error.”

Most of your post seems to be babbling about something that I have not mentioned so I assume you are addressing someone else even though you seem to have addressed the post to me. I repeat - “wanna try to impress us again?” BTW, granite does not deteriorate noticeably in 20 to 30 years.

And just like the ISIS bunch and the Taliban, all you’re trying to do is to bury our ACTUAL history. Sorry, but that’s simply WRONG.

And again you deflect. You seem to have nothing else you can do here.

The issue is not what the union did, the issue, is whether people have a legitimate grievance to want these statues torn down.

And if said people are Black, they sure as hell do, because these men outright stated that were fighting for a horrendous, dehumanizing ideology intended to subjugate them. Slavery wasn’t simply a tool to them, it was the natural order of things, and they lauded it as being “superior” to what was found in the North:

> “You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies where all the mechanics are white, and therefore it is that our mechanics hold their position of absolute equality among us.

> - Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

> "*The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South.

> We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation.*"

> - James Henry Hammond, Cotton is King

Slavery as an amelioration to class warfare. That’s what they believed in.

Yet, you have refused to take these men at their word about what they were fighting for. You and Devilneck rather seek to leverage their circumstances to explain their actions.

Sorry, but that just doesn’t explain even half the things human beings do. Humans are not animals, they don’t simply react, *** they make plans***. Ideology is a pernicious thing, and it can & will take on a life of its own, regardless of what the person is going through, regardless of what you think set it off.

This is what the left fails to understand about Islamists in the Middle East. They try to explain away everything they do as result of “those people” being “oppressed” or because they’re “poor”. That none of the evil things they do & celebrate are because they may happen to, say, believe in bullcrap they spew, that they have a God-appointed to role to subjugate and punish those who are not like themselves, but because they’re “misunderstood” and simply need aid and development to be coaxed out of that behavior.

What a crock of ****.

The right thing, is to treat these men as men who are responsible for their own decisions and their own words, and to judge them accordingly. To do anything less is dishonest, and so too btw, is telling the non-white people you’ve called “whiners”, that:

"*Well, they didn’t fight just for slavery, so it’s okay that we take your money to make statues of the very people who said they were defending your God-appointed role to be forever subservient to whites.

What, complain? Oh c’mon, that’s just intolerant of you.*"