Monuments To The Confederacy

Declaration of Causes of Secession

We'll start with Georgia:

 

On to Mississippi:

Now South Carolina:

The great state of Texas:

 

Clearly, every historical monument and structure built anywhere in the world before the 1800s should be destroyed and only those who support slavery disagrees. When is the WHITE HOUSE going to be demolished - or at least renames and painted different colors?!

 

Lincoln's motivation was to preserve the Union. The South's sole motivation was to preserve slavery.

Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery, and nothing but slavery.

All caught up now?

 

Bigots used "states' rights" as a cover for slavery and segregation, just as today they use the Bible as cover for their bigotry toward homosexuals.

No one is fooled by their bullshit.

No one.

 

Right off hand I can only think of one monument that honors the Confederacy but actually it's honoring those who wore the butterscotch uniform in which over 90% didn't own any slaves.

The vast majority of these monuments and statues that the American Taliban want to topple are honoring American military leaders. It's what all nations do.

We even have a monument honoring Benedict Arnold who was an American war hero before he became a traitor.


Every year on the island of Iwo Jima U.S. Marines and members of the Japanese military come together to honor the 6,821 U.S. Marines and sailors and the 18,375 Japanese soldiers and Imperial Marines who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

It's a military thing, the Taliban just doesn't get it.


US and Japanese visitors to Iwo Jima pay their respects to those who died in the battle together — as allies. Here, American and Japanese war veterans, US Marines and US Navy sailors, as well as others salute in front of the Reunion of Honor Memorial during the 50th anniversary of memorial service commemorating the battle of Iwo Jima







Former Jap Marine honoring U.S. Marines of the 5th Mar Div who were trying to kill him back in 1945.


The tradition of honoring the dead of the Battle of Iwo Jima is still honored, as shown in this 2010 photo taken at the top of Mount Suribachi, where memorials to the US and Japanese soldiers are located.

 

You don't see statues honoring Hitler, now do you?

Or any of his generals.

Or any of Tito's generals.

All caught up now?

 

Thats was brought up, instead they just tap dance around the whole idea!....Its real sick!

 

Hitler wasn't a general but just a corporal and wasn't a war hero or competent military strategist.

Germany doesn't have a Second Amendment or a First Amendment.




Field Marshal Erwin Rommel Monument

 

I'm talking about the US. We honor the Japanese dead, but not their generals or Hitler's generals.

Nor should we honor the generals or the Confederate leadership who fought to preserve slavery.

 

Where are you getting this version of history? When and where was the Northern "invasion"?

 

When they invaded Virginia, blockaded all the ports and attempted to split the Confederacy in half.

 

Must have seemed like an invasion by the north, given it was mostly fought in the South, and we didn't have confederate armies fighting in New York and Vermont.

When Sherman plowed that path of destruction, in his march to the sea, those folks sure thought it looked like they were being invaded.

Terrible and very costly war, which was probably unnecessary and slavery could have ended a few years later ,without the loss of life and destruction.

Of course, I probably loss a great deal of future wealth for myself because of this civil war. My ancestors, maternal and paternal, all owned great plantations, and many slaves. We grew cotton. We were wealthy land owners and plantation owners. And if not for all of my ancestors losing their wealth and land, surely my family line would have stayed at the top.

Which means that the kids of the plantation owners would have gotten the best education, and more than likely remained at the top, instead of becoming share croppers and living poor for a generation or two before this genetic line could pull themselves up and once again own farms and be farmers.

And this is what happened to my ancestors. Once rich plantation owners, and then poor share croppers and eventually land owners, farmers and cotton growers again. Yet that farming ended with my father's generation. He was the last in my family. Corporations moved into farming and it drove out the smaller cotton farmers.

Anyways, I still believe my great grandpa when he told me at the early age of 6, that those damned yankees had tails! If they drop their britches, a tail pops out and stands right up their backs. His father lost his right arm in the civil war. He wore the gray of course. But it is a family story that this man never put a whip to his slaves. If they were too much of a problem, he just sold them and bought more docile slaves. I guess his christianity must have kept him from whipping other human beings? I dunno, but he died poor, having lost it all in that war to carpet baggers and thieves. Yankee businessmen.

 

This timeline seems to disagree with your version

http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar/
and this one
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history

and this one

http://www.civilwar.com/overview/timeline-18354/147398-timeline.html

 

Then the south shouldn't have started it.

 

You don't know history.

And as long there is the Taliban in America who are toppling memorials you will never learn history.

Before 1865 Americans held their loyalty to the sovereign state they lived in, not to the federal government.

All you have to do is look at the "Order of Battle" on both sides.

There was no Confederate Army but only state armies like the Army of Northern Virginia that was led by Robert E. Lee.

On the Union side the vast majority of the regiments of the Union were state militias and state volunteer regiments not actual U.S. Army units.

 

Lincoln's motivation to use force was to collect "revenue and imposts" as per his Inaugural Address.

Secession was a political issue until Lincoln used force ..... to "collect revenue and imposts" then it became a war .... to "collect revenue and imposts".

All caught up now?

 

I am not learned enough to even discuss the causes, and the complexities that eventually led to the war. I am a little aware that some people have written books arguing that this war could have been avoided, but that would have happened way before the first attack took place. But there may be other opinions from other historians. I just dunno.

With that said, it was a most horrible and perhaps unnecessary war. But if that is the only way slavery could be ended, then it was a war worth fighting. If not, then it was a huge screw up. A failure of politicians.

 

Well, once those black men, especially younger ones, stopped being respectful, calling cops mister, minding their manners, they went crazy and huddled up in areas like chicago, sorted themselves into gangs, and starting shooting and killing one another, turning urban areas into some third world nation. Just saying.

In regards to confederate monuments, let the state vote to leave em or take em down. I got no dogs in that hunt, even as a southerner.

 

That could be correct.

 

The Civil war, over and over we explain with enormous patience, was not over slavery.

States departed the union. No doubt at all. Why? They feared they would lose their ability to earn a living. The public was called upon to vote. Yes to leave and no to stay. There were sufficient votes taken to leave. Case closed.

There was no war.

Abe the outlaw president decided to invade Virginia to cut off the head of the snake at Richmond. His invasion force that hit near Manassas, VA was routed. The Confederate army made a grave error in not pursuing the fleeing union invasion force and cutting them down.

note: this resembles how President GHW Bush refused to chase down Saddam's army and left him free to create a hell of a lot more killings.

As it happened, two years later, Abe the outlaw elected to write up a rather meaningless paper we call the emancipation proclamation. But it applied in enemy areas. So until the slaves were freed by forces, which of course actually freed them, the paper had no meaning.

Abe ended up called a hero for invading the nation that departed and blowing up a good deal of the cities of the south.

 

In the national parks are a good many statues. It is next to impossible to construct a museum that could hold the magnificent statues on Monument Ave in Richmond VA. Those are truly magnificent and harm nobody.

 

There are two versions of the civil war. According to ... get this, not Abraham Lincoln nor the North that waged war, but to much later historians .... from guess where? The north decided to concoct a tale it was over slavery.

The next version is true. This says the south abandoned the peculiar institution called the North, and some states joined some other states who definitely did join together to save slavery, and left the union.

War happened after that. Abe elected to invade. He did not rally the troops to tell them he was doing it over slavery. He told them he wanted to save the union and force back those states.

States left with slavery preserved as a mission.

War happened to so call save the union.

 

What an utter misrepresentation. Not only does your post show a complete lack of knowledge of history, but is a great example of yellow journalism. And it demonstrates the problem of the internet in which even the most ignorant troublemaker can have a loud voice.

 

That is not why they fought. They fought off an invasion created by Abe Lincoln.

Slavery at all times during the Civil war was entirely legal.

Imagine at a time when smoking was legal, say a city voted to keep smoking legal. Then the city is invaded over them legally smoking. It was not over slavery. Slavery one more time, totally legal.