Virginia governor to announce removal of Lee statue

Obviously, the camps came after Pearl Harbor, but created BECAUSE Japan attacked the US.... If Japan had never attacked, it is somewhere between zero chance to doubtful FDR would have done anything along those lines.

However, I have a sort of funny story about bold #2. I live within 10 miles of the museum where the Enola Gay is permanently housed. About 10 years ago, I took my young son to tour the museum. When we got to the Enola Gay side of the hanger, there were at least 2 busloads of primarily Japanese people surrounding it and taking smiling individual and group photos with it, with very few sombre faces...

One of the strangest scenes I could imagine...

I suppose the moral of the story is you have to let your anger go at some point...

 

Obviously when he's dead, sometime after Michelle's 2nd term....

Then the 2 year mandatory wait...

 

And you swallowed that line along with the hook and sinker.

 

Yes I did recall reading that recently in a large Kindle version of the Civil War. Well if they did it thrvRebs would have ended up as the Dominion Of The Southern Confederacy of America under the king or queen. The British had outlawed slavery so

People claim all sorts of things. The Bolsheviks claimed that they were fighting to free the working people of the Russian Empire. Ask the ghosts those who died in the Gulags and KBG prisons how that turned out.

 

Personally I see nothing wrong with having a statue of a mounted Robert E . Lee or any other military figure from the Civil War or any other historical reality. They add character and are of real historical value to cities where they are located. By getting rid of them you do absolutely nothing to go back and change the course of history. You cannot erase the past. I particularly like the statues of horse mounted historical figures.

 

Would this be happening if the registered republican not have cut off blood circulation causing death to a handcuffed man laying on the pavement? Yes or no?

I see neocons are still skirting any responsibility for anything. Has to be the most incompetent group of people to never actually accomplish anything...
I see it ALL THE DAMN TIME.

 

You righties still "fighting the good fight"......

 

I have South Carolina's address in front of me. Lots of mentions of slavery. Tariffs? Not so much. Besides, the South had already won the tariff disputes. In fact . . . "The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

I'm not. I'm referring to the second national flag of the Confederacy, the one adopted because the previous flag looked too similar to the Union flag.

"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race: a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause."

This flag would later end up too often confused with a flag of surrender and was abandoned. The corner piece of this flag became the battle flag that you are referring to.

The slaveholding states started seceding over anti-slavery suppression well before the war started. Plus, the Confederates fired the first shots of that war while trying to confiscate US property.

For the South, it was about slavery. They didn't care about limits of government and Constitutional interpretation, except mostly when it came to slavery.

Only after the South seceded in order to preserve slavery.

If the South fought for the former, then they would have granted their own states the "right" to be slave or free. They didn't. They cared more about slavery. The South fought for slavery. The North fought to bring the South back into the Union.

 

Delete

 

The North fought for revenue.

From Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts;"

 

Fake response. I've stated over and over and over and over again that I'm talking about the motives of the Confederacy and that I'm not defending the motives of the North. Also, the slavery-defending states started seceding before this speech, and they expressly did so for the purpose of protecting the institution of slavery.

 

These were specific claims are you denying the forces of the United States laid waste to the Confederacy, the homes and farms and businesses killing tens of thousands in the process? Yes we still honor those who defended those things from that aggression.

 

Try visiting the Pearl Harbor Memorial.

 

Sorry you don't like the answer which is historically correct. Slavery was just part of the reason and it was slavery in the new territories that was the issue, there was no move on the federal government to end slavery in the United States and the United States did not invade the Confederacy to end slavery and free the slaves it was to bring those states back into the Union with their slavery intact, the United States had legal slavery throughout the war.

Not with the cotton and other products they like to get cheap as the same with Europe. They just did not wan a large African population.

There slavery was going nowhere and there were other issues. The Union did not invade the South to end slavery.

More fallacious nonsense, the states of the Confederacy succeed quite nonviolently and just wanted to be left alone. Lincoln could have left them alone and saved over 600,000 lives and unimaginable destruction. And many slave states did not succeed and were slave states throughout the war. Southern states could have stayed in the Union and their slavery would also have remained.

So yes we memorialize those who stood up to the invasion, the Union aggression on to our lands destroying families and property killing those hundreds of thousands. We were a separate country during those years and it is part of our states history and heritage. This is not 1984 where you don't like history even someone else's then wipe it out.

 

The Union expressly did not invade the Confederacy to end slavery and free slaves. It was to keep to slaves states in the Union WITH their slavery like the Union slaves states.

 

Primary sources from the seceding states prove that you are wrong.

Fake response. I never claim that had done anything of the kind. The South, however, believed that was what was on the horizon. That's the primary reason that they seceded.

Quote me ever saying the the US invaded the Confederacy to end slavery. Go ahead. Surely you can do so.

Glad we agree that the "but the South was agrarian" argument is complete BS.

I never claimed they did, as you would know if you had bothered to read the thread. Wonder why that is too much to ask

No, the North did not invade the South to end slavery (a fake claim to begin with), BUT THE SOUTH DID SECEDE IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT AND EXPLICITLY STATED THIS FACT. How can you honestly keep running away from that fact and throwing straw men around instead?

More bull ****. The South seceded to preserve slavery AND THEN USED FORCE TO CONFISCATE FEDERAL PROPERTY. Another fact you will never bring yourself to address. Predictable.

In that case, you are are memorializing the attempt to use force to rebel against the Union for the express purpose of preserving slavery.

As for your 1984 claim, the only one trying to wipe out history here is you. You don't get to change history just because it offends you.

 

And if you had bothered to read the post you just quoted, you would know that your post is another fake response.

I repeat (how many years before you finally address this . . . seriously?):

I've stated over and over and over and over again that I'm talking about the motives of the Confederacy and that I'm not defending the motives of the North. Also, the slavery-defending states started seceding before this speech, and they expressly did so for the purpose of protecting the institution of slavery.

 

There was collateral damage during the Civil War there us no doubt. Near the end of the war Sherman did exercise some thinning out of cotton and food producing resources along with communication and transportation centers. That was necessary in order to save human lives by convincing the Rebels to surrender.

Have no fear Michelle will not run for POTUS and if she did she will not win.

 

The Southern States would not have seceded without the threats from the Republican party, which violated the Compact of the States as the South saw it.

No threats .... no secession. Simple as that. Note that the South held off until after the election.

That secession led to a war is entirely on Lincoln.

 

The Southern states chose to seceded OVER SLAVERY. SLA . . . VER . . . Y. Threatening to end slavery is a good thing. Sorry that you obviously disagree.

 

The South fought for their states to have the right to protect their property. The problem was that their property was human beings.

 

Capitalizing and various punctuation does your argument no good. Slavery, regardless of what anyone thinks, was a legal institution. That legal institution was expressly threatened by the Republican Party, which won the 1860 election. No one should have been surprised when the South seceded following that election.

Had Lincoln not made his run on Fort Sumter, the Confederacy would have consisted of only 7 States. Lincoln agitated 4 others into seceding.

 

They were worried it would be made illegal. Whether or not it was legal at the time doesn't matter. That was the whole point. They seceded to protect slavery because they thought it was in danger of becoming illegal or otherwise legally compromised. They seceded to preserve slavery in their states.

Meanwhile, the Feds owned Fort Sumter. They had every right to "make their run" on their own property while the South was trying to confiscate it. And it didn't even start with Fort Sumter. The Confederates had already confiscated other Federal property before Sumter.

 

The South fought because it was invaded. Secession was done in order to be left alone. That a war ensued is 100% on Lincoln.

 

When the Rebels fired on Ft. Sumpter starting the Civil War. Since the Southern states were part of the same country as were the Northern states it is impossible for a country to invade itself.