The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

According to.......

Postby Coondog » 2017 Aug 23 16:13

....... some of MSNBC's talking loudmouths, General Lee was a traitor who tried to take down the government of the United States. Poppycock!
Lee, along with most of his southern gentleman army, fought to keep the army of invading carpetbaggers out of the Old Dominion and friends. Did a mighty good job of it for a while.

Who should we erect monuments to? General Hunter who shelled Lexington and bravely burned the homes of little old ladies? U.S. Grant? Nobody even knows or cares who is buried in Grant's tomb!

Sure, Lee lost his war, but so did America in Vietnam, yet we put up monuments to celebrate the efforts and sacrifices of Americans in a losing effort. The Confederate States of America were still Americans who cared nothing about wrecking the government of the United States. They just wanted the same kind of "treasonous" freedom as did George Washington and Patrick Henry to do things their way.

We can disagree, distort and demonize their motives, today, but monuments reflect the times & feelings of the people who erected them. History! Heritage! Call it what you want.

If we have to take down the statues, can we send the carpetbaggers back where they came from? They can keep West Virginia.

Coondog

"I wave my underwear at you, Sir!" :surrend: - General Beauregard D. Coondog; Battle of Beagle Bulge 1863

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Wise One » 2017 Aug 24 12:22

Dan Rodricks wrote: Letter to those who raise the Confederate flag

Every time I see a Confederate flag in front of a house, I have a thought about starting a conversation with the man or woman, presumably a fellow American, who feels a need to display that thing 152 years after the Civil War.

Have not done so.

And that’s because I make quick and reasonable assumptions about the kind of reception I would get if I decided to pull over, knock on the door and question the homeowner about the flag on his porch.

I assume the question would not be appreciated. Just asking about it seems judgmental; it implies that I believe there’s something wrong with displaying the Confederate flag.

And, of course, I do. I hate the sight of it. But I don’t stop and say so because I don’t want to start trouble with a stranger. And the exercise would probably be pointless, anyway.

Citing 'safety and security,' Pugh has Baltimore Confederate monuments taken down
A person who hoists a Confederate flag on his front lawn might not be as angry and as aggressive as the white supremacists who marched on Charlottesville. But you never know, and that’s a problem. There are a lot of safe conversation starters in this country, but a Confederate flag isn’t one of them.

Still, it’s tempting to say something these days, perhaps more than ever. I can’t be the only American who wanted to share a few thoughts — one-on-one, if possible — with the owner of a Confederate flag, especially after the horror in Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in 2015, and now after Charlottesville.

But how? I’ve decided to try a letter. Here goes.

Greetings, my fellow American:

I noticed the old battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in front of your house, and I would like to offer a few comments about it. I respect your right to display that flag. I hope you will consider what I have to say.

I guess you know that most Americans want nothing to do with the Confederate flag. We see one on a house or car or truck and assume the worst — that the owner is a racist. We figure there’s nothing to be gained from talking to you.

So we leave it alone. We drive on by. The flag’s owner might be someone we know and even like, but we say nothing.

And, besides, this is America, and it’s none of my damned business what you do on your lawn.

But hear me out.

I bet you consider yourself a patriotic American. So do I. We all take some level of pride in this country, even with all its problems. The United States has had a lot of struggles, and it’s still struggling with our history. That flag on your lawn takes us back to one of the worst struggles of all: the great conflict that tore the nation apart more than 150 years ago.

Your Confederate flag celebrates a cause that, had it succeeded, would have meant no United States as we see it today. It would have meant more generations of slavery in the 11 Confederate States of America — cruel bondage for close to 4 million men, women and children.

Had that happened, where do you think we would be now? There would be two countries, presumably, and neither as great as the one, big country that developed into a superpower in the 20th Century.

Fortunately, the Union prevailed through the long, bloody madness of the Civil War, ending the evil of slavery.

Maybe you don’t think that was a good thing. Maybe that’s why you still fly the Confederate flag.

But look, my fellow American, this issue has been settled. The vast majority of your fellow citizens are glad the Union survived and that we have our country.

While we like to think of the United States as an exceptional nation, we have a lot of work to do. America is falling behind in many ways, including in how we treat each other.

Think of your children and grandchildren. Think of the future. How do we make progress in this country — in education, science, health, clean water, clean air, healthy food, good roads, green energy, new technology and a rising middle class — if we are not united?

That does not mean we will all agree on the way to the future. But we need to agree to treat each other with respect as we try to get there. That means everybody, no exceptions. Your children and grandchildren are living in a more diverse country, and they will be better for it. Don’t teach them fear. Teach them to be good citizens and to love their neighbors. Start by taking down that flag.

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely,
Your fellow American.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Aug 25 18:38

wise one,

People like you who are filled with so much hate with so little cause must lead miserable lives.

Most people who display the "Confederate Battle Flag" are much like me. They are not racist, they are only honoring the memory of brave people who put up a fight when their homes had been invaded by some very bad and or misguided people.

Like you many people who claim to be offended by the flag have very little knowledge of the war or it's beginning and most do not know that five of the Yankee States were Slave States and provided units to the Federal army.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Wise One » 2017 Aug 28 09:42

Thanks, Coondog and Fangz. Your postings a re coherent and well argued. Forgive me, but my take is a little askew of yours.

  • "Destroy monuments?" That's mere hyperbole. I'm always against destroying works of art. I favor moving monuments to slavery and those who defended it to places where they do not stand alone in publicly owned places of honor. Like museums where full context is explained, or private property where people can do whatever they damn well please. Or Fangz' suggestion that the present placement be augmented with additional displays delivering full context, probably impractical in most space-constrained venues.
  • "War of Northern Aggression?" Well, that's one way of putting it but there are a lot of corpses in the soil of Gettysburg PA who might say something about pots, kettles, and coloration. Not to mention southern slaves who were victims of domestic aggression up until it was checked by northerners.
  • "Destroying history?" Balderdash, what happened is documented to beat the band and is available to everybody everywhere. Besides, History is different things to different people. It is wrong to accord respect to the descendents of slave owners and those who fought to perpetuate slavery, pretending that this is not poking fingers in the eyes of the African-American descendents of the objects of their vile behavior.
  • I was also born in Stonewall Jackson's home. I'm not only grateful, but commend him on an excellent contribution to public discourse in the person of, well, me.
:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Aug 30 03:09

wise one, As you say history is well documented so why do you have it so wrong?
It really was "The War of Northern Aggression"
Even though the Lincoln administration was informed by the Confederate Government that the fort would only be fired on if ships were sent to resupply or reinforce the fort. Lincoln promptly sent a fleet to the mouth of Charleston harbor and sent in a decoy ship knowing that would start a battle with the Confederate guns firing first. Not one person was killed on either side during the battle. But it gave the Lincoln administration a reason to invade the Confederate States which is what they did. After four years of destroying the Southern States and making war on civilians the Federal Government continued to make war on the southern people for ten more years during a period of time called "Reconstruction"

And today people like you and ANTIFA and a group of liberals who are overcome with hate are trying to rewrite history and destroy all trace of the brave folks who resisted that Northern Aggression.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

First of all........

Postby Coondog » 2017 Sep 02 17:02

........I am taking this opportunity to announce that I will no longer be referring to myself in the third person. Having observed our President over the past months, and the apparent dementia exhibited thereby, from now on, it's just "me".

So, having made that monumental leap, I'd like to pursue the issue at hand by stating that I do realize that my position on firearms and the Confederacy does deviate from that of my fellow flaming liberals and from purists of the progressive bent such as the Wise One. When I find myself of like mind with Cannoneer on an issue, it does not mean I've abandoned my generally leftist principles. It means I'm not towing anybody's line but my own and at my ripe old age, I'm weary of hollow causes and complaints that don't mean squat. That goes for fundamentalists and fanatics of all ilk.


the Great Jimmy Carter brokered a peace deal between Egypt and the Hebrews that remains in place today. Yet, we don't hear Jews barking about tearing down pyramids because it reminds them of slavery. No! Because they know what parts of ancient history are relevant today and which ones aren't. And they're in the Middle East for crying out loud. Surely we can be at least that sensible.

Would that our colored cousins rid themselves of the chip on their shoulders over slavery and stick to more contemporary issues, of which there are plenty. Would that conservatives climb down off their high horses and drop the moralistic demonization of everyone who ain't them. It's feigned and only causes a lot of trouble.

So, let's all get together and start hating the North Koreans. Those poor bastards have suffered enough and deserve to die. That's America!

Coondog :beer:

Thank you Falettinme be mice elf again

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Wise One » 2017 Sep 02 22:16

Well argued ... I love when a good case is presented, even if I don't quite agree on all the fine details. They are, after all, just details and agreement on the big general principles is pretty good.

But you are wrong. You have not shifted from third person to first person narrative. You have shifted from third dog to first dog.

The first dog has a great view and doesn't have to look at all those assholes.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Sep 05 09:41

For a moment let's consider what would have happened to slavery if the north had never invaded the South.

The 13 amendment had already been written and signed by Lincoln so on Jan. 1, 1866 all the slaves in the nine northern slave states would have been set free. No different from what did happened on that date. That would have included Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. States that only left the Union over Lincoln's Aggression.
The Battle Flag would would not exist.
Lee and Jackson would never have had to take up arms to repel an invader and there would be no statues of them.
Growing the same crops every year was depleting the soil and the land was producing less each year. .
The house and stable slaves were pure overhead.
Industrial advances were replacing the need for manpower with machines
Slavery would have ended on its own without the loss of half a million Americans and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Wise One » 2017 Sep 05 14:17

Odd logic.

The 13th Amendment was finally in place for only 3 months before the end of the Civil War. Nobody of substance believes it would have been proposed, passed by both houses of Congress, and ratified by the requisite number of states had not the Civil War occurred. Slavery would have persisted indefinitely.

On your rationale, six million people would not have died in German death camps if we and our allies had stood aside and not fought WWII. Ridiculous.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Sep 05 17:59

wise,
Your statement about WWII is ridiculous.

What people of substance would those be?

Lincoln was an abolitionist, The Republicans were all abolitionist. They wanted an end to slavery and the 13th amendment would certainly been passed without the seven Gulf States being involved.

Lincoln started the war to force the seceding states back into the Union. The issue of slavery came into play after the battle of Sharpsburg.

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 131
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Re: An endless present

Postby Kevsky » 2017 Sep 10 19:55

Fangz Stated:
what I came to learn as an adult was that the history taught in the public schools during my time there was pretty damn whitewashed. This state as well as this nation, need to talk factually about the elephant that has been in the room since the founding of this country. We need to drag all of the skeletons out of the closet and show them the light of day. Oh yes, there will be much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. But, this is the only way (I think) that this nation, the South, and the Commonwealth of Virginia stand any real chance of actual healing.............healing wounds born of white supremacy, racism, slavery, elitism, sexism, genocide.


Excellent point. Let's shed some light on history and expound on your list of moral short-comings and see who should have memorials dedicated to them.

1. Chief Cornstalk - this is the Chief who led his band of murderers through what is now West Virginia and Virginia culminating in the massacres at Muddy Creek and our own Kerr's Creek. The "brave" warriors' strategy was to go from house to house killing the individual families before the community could organize a defense. When they came to a house they felt had too many men and may organize a resistance, the cowards would pretend to be friendly and lull the families out of the house where the "braves" could come up from behind and slit the men's throats. In Kerr's Creek, after killing all the males, they took the women as war booty (those they did not kill). The infants that they captured they would take by the legs and swing their heads against rocks to kill them or impale them on spears and leave the grotesque site behind them to scare away pursuers. Yet today, we have a monument to this "Nazi of North America" at Point Pleasant WV. Would you not say his acts of savagery are worse that those of General Lee or Andrew Jackson? Where are the moralists condemning the statues of Southern Leaders in this regard? Why no condemnation here? Come on, he committed genocide and sexism. But I guess he just was not a white male and therefore can be forgiven!! Should we take his memorial down? Maybe put it in a museum with an explanation for his tribes genocidal tendencies?

2. Native American Tribes Who Participated in the Trail of Tears - tear down these memorials. It is a historical fact that the native American tribes that were participants in the Trail Of Tears allowed slavery. In fact, black slaves(the worst of sins). Why should we have monuments and memorials to Native American tribes that owned slaves? Really, if the mentality with regards to the Southern Monuments is that they should be taken down because the South was in open rebellion to the United States and therefore traitorous, than why should we have monuments or memorials to any Native American tribe that, over the course of history, was at war with the U.S. Were they not traitorous as well than? Should we even allow these traitors to have their own reservations and tax-exempt status?

3. Michael King AKA Dr. Martin Luther King Jr - He was never legally named Martin Luther King, was not a junior, and should not be pre-fixed with Dr. as it is well documented that he plagiarized his thesis as well as many of his sermons and speeches. Hell, one has to wonder if his last name was even "King".

A Boston University committee reports that while 45% of the first half and 21% of the second half of King's thesis was plagiarized, it was still an original contribution to scholarship, and his degree should not be revoked. The true extent of King's plagiarism is much greater, and comparing his thesis with its sources, one can only conclude that BU's conclusion was purely political and academically dishonest.


He apparently liked to have sexual affairs with multiple women and and beat women.

Abernathy related an extraordinary story that indicated King spent the last night of his life enjoying the attentions of not one but two lovers, followed by an encounter with a third woman whom he knocked sprawling across his motel room bed.

The above quote is from Ralph Abernathy, one of King's closest friends and the man who held King while he lay dying from his gunshot wound.

Michael King also consorted and affiliated himself with communists.

he (Michael King) once said that he wanted "to help our Viet Cong comrades in arms." Perhaps his wife felt the same way; she went to Hanoi with her friends, as U.S. soldiers were dying in the south Vietnam.


One of Michael King's closest advisors was Stanley Levison.

the FBI considered Levison to be a major financial coordinator for the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)


Should we really have monuments and memorials to a cheating, woman beating communist? How can there be actual healing if we do not address these moral short-comings and allow a person to be honored with monuments and memorials who had so many moral integrity issues. Surely how can we justify removing Southern monuments and memorials due to the immorality of slavery but allow monuments and memorials to a single person who apparently had numerous moral lapses. Is that not hypocritical? Maybe we should move all monuments to King to museums or private property and rename the streets to the women he abused?

4. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger was a virulent racist. She was also the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966) was the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wherein she initiated “The Negro Project” in 1939. The objective of the Negro Project was to reverse the growth of the black community by infiltrating it with birth control services. If killing blacks off altogether was not possible, then it sought to at least greatly reduce the black growth rate through abortion and sterilization.


The plan of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood has resulted in the murder of over 20 million blacks through abortion. No doubt that the KKK is red with envy at her morbid efficiency. Where does the antifa scum stand on this? Should this woman and the entity she created have memorials and monuments in our country? Should we hold Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger to the same standard we hold the leaders of the Confederacy?

5. Buffalo Soldiers - Poor dumb black soldiers persuaded to kill Native Americans. Why should we have monuments to men who volunteered to kill Native Americans?? Should we allow monuments to memorialize the killers of native Americans?

6. Rosa Parks -

The myth that has grown up around Rosa Parks is of an exhausted Birmingham seamstress who, in 1955, was too tired to give up her seat and move to the colored section so a white man could sit down. According to the myth, this spontaneous act sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and launched the civil rights movement. In the miles of column inches that greeted the news of her death, there were only hints of what really happened.

In fact, Parks’s decision to keep her seat was carefully planned by the NAACP, for which she had worked for 10 years as a secretary. Her arrest did help start the bus boycott, but she played no role in organizing it. And though the boycott has gone down in folklore as a great blow for freedom, it did not even succeed; it was a court order that integrated Birmingham’s buses.

Several black women had already done exactly what Parks later did. They were arrested and charged with minor infractions. Parks’s best known predecessor was Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old high school student who refused to give up her seat on March 2, 1955. She was arrested and taken off the bus kicking and screaming. Police say she was screaming obscenities; she later claimed she was screaming that her constitutional rights were being violated. Not even Miss Colvin’s case was the spontaneous act for which Parks is now generally remembered. The girl had been active in the NAACP Youth Council, and had even discussed strategy with Rosa Parks herself.

The NAACP considered basing a desegregation case on the basis of Miss Colvin’s arrest but soon decided she was not an attractive plaintiff. She was dark, and many blacks wanted a lighter-skinned spokesman. The NAACP also learned she was several months pregnant by a married man, and discovered her habit of breaking out in volleys of curses. This was not a girl conservative black church-goers would support.


Should we have monuments to a mere set-up? Should we really not have a monument to the original dissenters or must we keep the monument to the "symbolic and hand-picked" Rosa Parks who was not the first to refuse to give up her seat but was the one who best represented the NAACP.

Bet these facts were never taught in public schools. Whitewashed from the curriculum undoubtedly? Are these the elephants in the room that need to be discussed? Got any healing going on?

The truth of the matter in regards to the removal of Confederate Statues is that this is only the beginning. We will continue to see this movement expand and the targets of their aim to expand as well. Already Thomas Jefferson is questioned (owned slaves), James Madison (owned slaves), George Washington (owned slaves) and Christopher Columbus (enslaved Native Americans). What than? The U.S. Constitution was signed by 41 men who owned slaves. Do we dissolve it? The U.S. flag was flown over our nation for nearly 100 years while slavery was legal. Do we destroy our flag? Who gets to decide who should and should not be memorialized and by what criteria? What litmus test must one pass or fail to have a statue or to have their statue removed? Why are some historical figures immune from having their morality questioned(see my list above)?

In reality, the current spate of activity to remove statutes is merely a political movement by leftists who are attempting to use a moral tone for the destruction and re-writting of history. They have the same mind-set and zealotry of committing cultural genocide as the communists of the Soviet Union and Communist China and the Taliban of Afghanistan. Much like the totalitarian regime in the book "1984", the modern day leftists are attempting to control the facts of history of which the statues and memorials are a part of.

From "1984"
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2017 Sep 11 12:31

An exhaustive (and exhausting) posting.

Scurrilous and pointless. It boils down to this.

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Sep 12 02:11

As usual neck you put something in the wrong place. Your "boils down to this" has nothing to do with the subject at hand.In fact

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Wise One » 2017 Sep 12 11:59

Here's an excellent compilation of source material from the American Historical Association on
The Decision to Secede and Establish the Confederacy: A Selection of Primary Sources

There's a lot here, covering a large range and presented by professionals in the field.

Just one note: I re-read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. Anybody who maintains the war and the Confederacy were not about slavery is, simply, nuts. I love the parts reaffirming the 3/5 count of dark-skinned people, the carving in stone of people as mere property, and a ban on importation of slaves from outside the Confederacy.

Lest you conclude this latter indicates a tinge of humanity, it was not that at all. Slave-owners feared that the importation of new slaves from outside the confederacy would depress the market value of their "property." It was all about exploitation of people in already bondage for as much money as they could extract.

Similar to the case today, the slaveholding 1% conned a stupid and compliant 99% into fighting and dying to preserve immoral profits for the 1%.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Sep 12 19:41

wise,

Have you and neck been eating the same stupid pills?

What does your post have to do with tearing down the statues of brave men who answered the call to defend their home State from an invading army?

The Confederate Constitution had nothing with starting the war.

The Lincoln Administration started the war and invaded The Southern States to force them back into the Union. Ending slavery was not mentioned for nearly a year and a half.

Old Abe called for 100,000 volunteers to preserve the Union.

Certainly you know all this because you claim to be well versed on history.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Let it be

Postby Coondog » 2017 Sep 16 15:23

Let us not lose sight of the topic at hand. We need to remember that these statues represent an historical perspective of a substantial number of citizens of the country. Whether they were erected in 1864 or 1940 or yesterday, they are symbolic of another time and should be recognized as such. Clearly, there remain a number of people who still hold a measure of reverence for them, and not just usurpers of symbols like the KKK, Nazis and other right wing fanatics; categories with which neither I nor cannoneer can justifiably be associated.

The flaggers, who I adamantly disagree with over their Boycott Lexington nonsense, have admirably set an example and stayed out of the issue. Everybody else should too. The removal of statues has only served to stir up animosity that need not exist.

As I have intoned, leave the damned statues where they are, stop using them to express feigned outrage and, if one must, go pick some other unimportant issue to be offended over.

Coondog

Just a howling wonder of nature........

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 131
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Kevsky » 2017 Sep 17 07:57

Neck Aint Red wrote:An exhaustive (and exhausting) posting.
Scurrilous and pointless. It boils down to this.

The facts of the study from the article that Neck posted:
1.
Given the very low support for Donald Trump among African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinx, our
analyses include only the white respondents who completed the experiment

https://app.luminpdf.com/viewer/ztqq3daMLcuAGmGur
So the survey did not include minorities who would support Trump stating it was due to low support for Donald Trump,
even though he received 29 percent of the Asian and Hispanic vote but did include them for those who supported
Clinton.
2.
this produced a final sample of n= 746

https://app.luminpdf.com/viewer/ztqq3daMLcuAGmGur
So a survey of only 746 persons is supposed to professionally represent the 62,979,636 voters who voted for President
Trump.

The survey is just another leftist propaganda piece with no basis in facts. The authors (read their biographies) are highly ideological leftists. The study was manipulated to achieve the results they wanted. With a survey size of only 746 persons, the survey is totally irrelevant (how many respondents were just dolts in the professors' classes who received extra credit for taking the survey as the racist supporter of Trump). Just more leftists needing to establish those whom they disagree with as morally inferior even if they have to lie, fabricate and manipulate data to do so.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Wise One » 2017 Sep 22 07:58

The Robert E. Lee Memorial Episcopal Church has changed its name back to its historic and original Grace Episcopal Church.

I had no dog in this fight and am happy with private parties doing what they like on their property, honoring or dishonoring those who fought for slavery and insurrectionist symbols.

Public property is another matter.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Sep 22 08:56

Since you are a virginian you should know the history of your own state which apparently you either do not, or are too biased to believe it.
Virginia only left the Union when ordered to participate in forcing The seven Confederate States back into the Union at bayonet point. It was not over slavery.
Even If you can't understand article one only giving a portion of the states sovereignty to the Federal Government, you should know that in its ratification of the constitution Virginia reserved the right to leave the Union.
I think you are so hung up on your own predigest feelings that you just can't see the truth.
If any statues should be taken down it should be those of the real criminals of the war between the states and the reconstruction. Like Lincoln, Grant, Sheridan and Sherman.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: The trashing off Lee and Jackson

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2017 Oct 10 00:02

John Oliver on "Preserving our History."