Yeah well good luck with that. A giant sculpture, even if it might depict less than admirable individuals somewhat, is a very different thing from flags on the local court house.
Nothing to see here but the NAACP overreaching once again where it doesn't really need to. Move along.
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
I disagree- they were still people, and had their own heroic moments. Not all who died for the Confederacy were evil monsters, nor all who fought for the Union saints. Keeping them in our minds reminds us that they were all people, good or bad.
Well considering that forrest is the closest you will get to a legit war criminal in the civil war and the first grand wizard/possible founder of the KKK I really don't see the problem moving his remains.
Sinful Hero wrote: I disagree- they were still people, and had their own heroic moments. Not all who died for the Confederacy were evil monsters, nor all who fought for the Union saints. Keeping them in our minds reminds us that they were all people, good or bad.
So, this is a "Not all Nazis were Monsters" excuse?
It does not matter whether they were personally saints (although NONE were saints given they knew what they were fighting for).
Like those "Good men" fighting for the Third Reich, they lost any right to be celebrated by choosing to fight for a side that was based upon an evil premise or foundation.
They were fighting for a cause that was wrong.
They belong ONLY in Museums, and history books, NOT on monuments celebrating anything about them at all (no matter how good of a person they were).
And, as has been pointed out, Nathan Bedford Forrest was the founder of the KKK.
Like ALL of the other Confederates, he was fighting for a system that was based upon the premise that some men are created by God to be owned by others (who were chosen by God to lead the world).
Nathan Forrest just refused to stop fighting for what he believed in. It isn't like the other Confederates suddenly changed their minds simply because they lost. They remained people who believed they should be allowed to own human beings as slaves. They just lost any ability to do so.
And we should not be celebrating ANYONE who fought for the Confederacy, which was created in order to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
The same could be said of Washington and the other founding fathers had they lost the Revolutionary War.
Sinful Hero wrote: I disagree- they were still people, and had their own heroic moments. Not all who died for the Confederacy were evil monsters, nor all who fought for the Union saints. Keeping them in our minds reminds us that they were all people, good or bad.
So, this is a "Not all Nazis were Monsters" excuse?
It does not matter whether they were personally saints (although NONE were saints given they knew what they were fighting for).
Like those "Good men" fighting for the Third Reich, they lost any right to be celebrated by choosing to fight for a side that was based upon an evil premise or foundation.
They were fighting for a cause that was wrong.
They belong ONLY in Museums, and history books, NOT on monuments celebrating anything about them at all (no matter how good of a person they were).
And, as has been pointed out, Nathan Bedford Forrest was the founder of the KKK.
Like ALL of the other Confederates, he was fighting for a system that was based upon the premise that some men are created by God to be owned by others (who were chosen by God to lead the world).
Nathan Forrest just refused to stop fighting for what he believed in. It isn't like the other Confederates suddenly changed their minds simply because they lost. They remained people who believed they should be allowed to own human beings as slaves. They just lost any ability to do so.
And we should not be celebrating ANYONE who fought for the Confederacy, which was created in order to preserve and expand the institution of slavery.
MB
You're assuming every soldier who fought for the Confederacy did so to support slavery. The fact is, all have many different reasons to fight. Robert E. Lee for example fought out of allegiance to his home state, despite his desire to keep the union intact.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
Welcome to the world of historical rewrites, you mean, ignoring facts.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
The states right to have slaves, look at the declarations of secession most of them mention slavery in the first line or first few lines.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
Welcome to the world of historical rewrites, you mean, ignoring facts.
Oh boy you mean the south didn't lose the civil war?
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
"The Victors write the History" you mean. But they don't always write the truth.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
The states right to have slaves, look at the declarations of secession most of them mention slavery in the first line or first few lines.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
Welcome to the world of historical rewrites, you mean, ignoring facts.
Oh boy you mean the south didn't lose the civil war?
You know what I meant. Still waiting on your take on the Revolutionary War heroes fighting to keep their slaves, which you are trying to sidestep.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
The states right to have slaves, look at the declarations of secession most of them mention slavery in the first line or first few lines.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
Welcome to the world of historical rewrites, you mean, ignoring facts.
Oh boy you mean the south didn't lose the civil war?
You know what I meant. Still waiting on your take on the Revolutionary War heroes fighting to keep their slaves, which you are trying to sidestep.
Oh yeah because slavery was the first thing people were fighting for, not the taxes and lack of rights. No siree bob it was about slaves first and foremost, I mean its not as if the founding fathers wrote about keeping slaves in the first line of the declaration of independence.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
The states right to have slaves, look at the declarations of secession most of them mention slavery in the first line or first few lines.
The state governments issued those declarations- that doesn't necessarily mean the people in those states agreed with them. Many had various other reasons to go ahead and fight for the Confederacy.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
The states right to have slaves, look at the declarations of secession most of them mention slavery in the first line or first few lines.
Ustrello wrote: Slavery/the aspiration to own slaves was a major reason.
I have a books worth of Civil war letters that give other major reasons also, such as state's rights. You also ignore the fact that slave holders in the Revolutionary War were fighting for the right to keep slaves while the British were freeing them.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
Welcome to the world of historical rewrites, you mean, ignoring facts.
Oh boy you mean the south didn't lose the civil war?
You know what I meant. Still waiting on your take on the Revolutionary War heroes fighting to keep their slaves, which you are trying to sidestep.
Oh yeah because slavery was the first thing people were fighting for, not the taxes and lack of rights. No siree bob it was about slaves first and foremost, I mean its not as if the founding fathers wrote about keeping slaves in the first line of the declaration of independence.
You should read history a little bit more carefully or speak with some of the British Dakka posters.
This purge, weeks ago passed the point of ridiculousness:
Oh, it's not good. Destroying own history is acting like aliens to their own country.
In Russia, it happen many times. During Peter I europesation, bolsheviks revolution, 1989-1991 events.
But in Finland they have Mannerheim, Alexander tsar and Lenin in almost same place and don't bother about it.
history should be remembered, not hated and erased
Didn't the Spanish Inquisition have a habit of doing that? Exhuming corpses in general I mean, not Nathan Bedford Forrest in particular.
It's probably not a good sign when society is heading back down that path.
If I recall everything correctly, his family donated the land to the city on condition of his remains and such being kept there. They already changed the name of the park, which caused a ruckus itself. Of course they haven't dug him out yet- they still have several steps to proceed through before they get to that.
Look what happened in Russia: We had civil war too. And bolsheviks won.
"Winner writes history", yeah? And they rewrited history of Russia as it all way to communism utopia and tsarist Russia was evil. Actually It was, in some cases (90% uneducated and poor peasants). But bolsheviks used some historical bandits for propaganda, rewriting history as they were "fighters for freedom"
But in 1991 communists no more.
Again re-writing history?
How many times it should be rewrited and how many historical monuments should be destroyed? under the influence of momentary trends
This purge, weeks ago passed the point of ridiculousness:
Oh, it's not good. Destroying own history is acting like aliens to their own country.
In Russia, it happen many times. During Peter I europesation, bolsheviks revolution, 1989-1991 events.
But in Finland they have Mannerheim, Alexander tsar and Lenin in almost same place and don't bother about it.
history should be remembered, not hated and erased
Welcome to the U.S in the 2010's, or any other point in time the mob is told what to believe.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Political Correctness has become a blight on humanity, so it may offend some people? Big deal, it happened, educate not eradicate history.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Political Correctness has become a blight on humanity, so it may offend some people? Big deal, it happened, educate not eradicate history.
We live in a country where loser dads complain about a Slave Leia toy.
Clearly, the winner isn't the only one who writes history. "The winner writes the history" is probably my least favorite piece of folk wisdom that is laughably untrue. With the exception of wars of total annihilation in which every man, woman, and child is put to the sword, followed by the salting of fields and the burning of every library, monument, and other record of a civilization, the only way in which the phrase "the winner writes the history" is true is if it is followed by "and so does the loser."
And if the line between "winner" and "loser" is even slightly blurry it's even better! Who writes the history if both sides think they won? (Answer: everybody!)
Do we allow murderers and rapists their own gravestone? It is a monument for that person. You may not like it but their family deserves something to remember them by, somewhere to mourn their loss. Why? Because those people know them as people not just monsters. It is the same in the South. There are people who still trace their ancestry to the Civil war. They deserve something to remember those who defended their land from attack.
You might as well argue that taking down the Berlin wall was purging history as well. That wall stood for 40 years, its their history and heritage. Given a few hundred more years it would have been as notable as the great wall of china. And America could of had a nice franchise of good German food at the Berlin wall buffet chains with a nice statue of Hitler to greet you.
They not just writing history, but also re-writing what was already written.
And more sad - they destroying monuments! No matters who
Spoiler:
The Duke boys wouldn't be out of place there either. No body thought twice about them in all the decades they were on tv, then suddenly the finger was pointed, someone screamed racist and they were purged.
You might as well argue that taking down the Berlin wall was purging history as well. That wall stood for 40 years, its their history and heritage. Given a few hundred more years it would have been as notable as the great wall of china. And America could of had a nice franchise of good German food at the Berlin wall buffet chains with a nice statue of Hitler to greet you.
But nope, Regan just had to go and purge history.
And it makes a great gift that people aren't afraid to market.
They not just writing history, but also re-writing what was already written. And more sad - they destroying monuments! No matters who
Spoiler:
While I am deeply saddened at the destruction of historical structures and monuments like that, amazingly, we still have photos, books, records and history of all those things.
You might as well argue that taking down the Berlin wall was purging history as well. That wall stood for 40 years, its their history and heritage. Given a few hundred more years it would have been as notable as the great wall of china. And America could of had a nice franchise of good German food at the Berlin wall buffet chains with a nice statue of Hitler to greet you.
But nope, Regan just had to go and purge history.
The Berlin wall was a physical barrier dividing a city in half, separating families and friends. Statues and monuments, while they may cause emotional discomfort, don't represent the very real barrier that the Berlin wall functioned as. And, in fact, the Berlin wall is still standing in certain places in Berlin, because it is an important part of their history.
The monuments on stone Mountain are not going anywhere.
They are on a park that is Privately owned and maintained.
Forrest's family's graves and statue are also not going anywhere. The monument is protected by the heritage preservation act in Tennessee, and the graves cannot be moved without the family's permission, which they will not give.
Memphis city council, it turns out, were hoping to clean up the land so it could be sold to the university of Tennessee for a proposed 500 million expansion.
Are you aware that after one year as leader of the klan, Forrest ordered it to disband and denounced it as an ungovernable mob? Afterwards Forrest was like Scrooge on Christmas morning, providing funds and support for blacks to be able and allowed to attend college? He became such a champion of black rights that he was the first white man invited to speak in front of the (forerunner organization of) the NAACP.
snurl wrote: The monuments on stone Mountain are not going anywhere.
They are on a park that is Privately owned and maintained.
Forrest's family's graves and statue are also not going anywhere. The monument is protected by the heritage preservation act in Tennessee, and the graves cannot be moved without the family's permission, which they will not give.
Memphis city council, it turns out, were hoping to clean up the land so it could be sold to the university of Tennessee for a proposed 500 million expansion.
Are you aware that after one year as leader of the klan, Forrest ordered it to disband and denounced it as an ungovernable mob? Afterwards Forrest was like Scrooge on Christmas morning, providing funds and support for blacks to be able and allowed to attend college? He became such a champion of black rights that he was the first white man invited to speak in front of the (forerunner organization of) the NAACP.
It's so much more straightforward if we can just use him as a bad guy though. The storyline about Nathan Bedford Forest ordering the Klan to disband and giving a speech about racial reconciliation is only in the ACW comics, which the average audience member hasn't read. Most Americans are only familiar with the ACW film universe, in which that subplot was cut. I think it makes sense, as nobody from the South really needs any character development to serve as a solid stock villain. I heard that George Lucas and Spike Lee are actually going to do a prequel trilogy anyway, in which the whole Civil War will be retconned, and the conflict streamlined to one set piece fight in which Abraham Lincoln and Captain Kirk have a lightsaber duel with Kahless and Nathan Bedford Forest.
Ustrello wrote: Well considering that forrest is the closest you will get to a legit war criminal in the civil war and the first grand wizard/possible founder of the KKK I really don't see the problem moving his remains.
Flying a traitor flag over a statehouse is unthinkable, in my opinion. It should have come down over a hundred years ago, but better late than never.
On the other hand, though - exhuming a corpse? That's crazy talk. The man is dead. Good, bad, or indifferent, let him lie.
generally speaking, I wouldn't remove monuments, statues, or other pieces of historical interest; but flying a flag is a symbol that in my opinion a statue is not.
Thats Stone Mountain.
1. Its huge. I mean its bigger than Mount Rushmore large.
2. Its a defacto monument to the Confederacy. Messing with that might start a response that is...not expected. We don't need da crazies going full slow over a statue. With Stone Mountain, they just might. Wait a century.
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
Bring it yankee and we'll burn you down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: This purge, weeks ago passed the point of ridiculousness:
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Saying "Pro Tip" really adds an air of respectability to your posts.
All of this is getting incredibly, incredibly tiresome.
Protip when you have a giant mountain dog and a dumbass wiener dog, and the mountain dog only tolerates the wiener dog being alive, watch that the mountain dog doesn't try to pee on the wiener dog's head when they are both by a tree.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
I remember being 15 and bored when out of school.
Pro Tip: I've never seen anyone that used Pro Tip on a forum that I'd share a beer with.
Unless for construction purposes or nature, leave the dead alone, even the bad ones. For Forrest, leave the body. Turn the park into a public dump. Justice!
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
I remember being 15 and bored when out of school.
Pro Tip: I've never seen anyone that used Pro Tip on a forum that I'd share a beer with.
Pro tip: indeed. Skip the beer and go straight to the bourbon!
Ustrello wrote: Well considering that forrest is the closest you will get to a legit war criminal in the civil war and the first grand wizard/possible founder of the KKK I really don't see the problem moving his remains.
Bull gak. He was awful, but just one of many, if you actually paid attention in class, young man. Both sides did some fethed up gak during that dark time in our country's history.
Camp Sumter / Andersonville Prison: Camp Sumter was only in operation for fourteen months, however, during that time 45,000 Union soldiers were imprisoned there, and nearly 13,000 died from disease, poor sanitation, malnutrition, overcrowding, or exposure.
Champ Ferguson at Saltville: He is notorious for acting with marked cruelty and targeting anyone, even women and children, whom he felt crossed him or supported the North. He is said to have cut the heads off 80-year-old men and rolled them down hills into towns. He was arrested within 3 months of returning home to Nashville after hearing news of Lincoln’s assassination, and was tried and hanged on 20 October 1865 for 53 counts of murder.
Sacking of Osceola, Missouri: When the Union soldiers were routed, they fled into the surrounding woods and cornfields, and Lane led his men into the town where they burned 797 of 800 buildings to the ground. They took care to kill none of the civilian population, but forced them from their homes and then searched every room of every building and stripped all belongings deemed of value, before torching everything, even the church. Lane stole a piano for himself. He then ordered 9 men of military age, one of them 16 years old and sobbing over his dead horse, to be tried on suspicion of aiding the Confederacy, and had them shot dead.
Battle of Fort Pillow: Fort Pillow was a Union stronghold on the Tennessee banks of the Mississippi River, near Henning, and on 12 April 1864, it was besieged by up to 2,500 cavalrymen under General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who would later become the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Forrest easily took control of the high ground around the fort and demanded it be surrendered. The commander refused and Forrest’s men assaulted and overwhelmed the defenders. Many of them were shot down as they fled into the river. Both sides of the war reported that after the fort’s surviving garrison, most of it comprised of black soldiers and civilian workers, surrendered and was disarmed, the Confederates swarmed upon them and bayoneted, knifed, and clubbed some 250 men to death in an orgy of sadism. Over two dozen were castrated and lynched. Forrest always maintained that this massacre was a fair fight because the defenders were armed to the very end.
Lawrence Massacre: Captain William Clarke Quantrill led a raid into Lawrence, Kansas on 21 August 1863. Lawrence was a hotbed of anti-slavery sentiment and Quantrill was a fervent pro-slavery Confederate guerrilla, who had effectively enlisted into the Army under General Sterling Price, but deserted to form his own band of soldiers. There was little law in the Kansas Territory, and Quantrill’s Raiders are known for more than one infraction of it. Quantrill was especially out to kill James Lane, but Lane escaped into a cornfield. The Raiders descended from Mount Oread into town at about 5:00 in the morning and burned down every business and municipal building. Homes were spared torching but the families were driven outside and the husbands, fathers, and son all shot dead on their porches, in the streets, even in their beds. The women were raped, some of them and some children shot down or trampled while they fled. At least 185 men and boys as young as 11 were executed merely for being able-bodied.
Camp Douglas: From 1864 on, the inmates were no longer fed adequately, but given only enough to keep them alive and hungry, purely for the guards’ amusement. They were forced to stand at attention in freezing rain and sleet for hours, during which time the guards robbed them of any valuables. The death toll by the war’s end has been put at 4,454, but many went unreported, and the total figure may be as high as 6,000, most from exposure and disease brought on by malnutrition.
Ustrello wrote: Pro tip, they won so fake scenarios dont matter.
Pro tip, it was a very real possibility this would have happened, since they were being called traitors by the British and a good portion of their countrymen.
They won so it literally does not matter, the south lost so they are traitors. Welcome to the real world.
I remember being 15 and bored when out of school.
Pro Tip: I've never seen anyone that used Pro Tip on a forum that I'd share a beer with.
If ever possible, Kronk, the first round is definitely on me!
What point exactly are you trying to make with the "here are the flags of a nation that used to have slavery and repealed it" post when talking about symbols of a nation that had slavery and not only failed to repeal it but split from the USA for the distinct purpose of keeping slavery legal?
d-usa wrote: What point exactly are you trying to make with the "here are the flags of a nation that used to have slavery and repealed it" post when talking about symbols of a nation that had slavery and not only failed to repeal it but split from the USA for the distinct purpose of keeping slavery legal?
Thats your view (which I agree with actually). Not necessarily their view.
Considering all the text we have from the states that seceded and their leaders you have to either be ignorant of the truth or blind to it in order to believe otherwise.
You can argue that individuals fighting for the confederacy were not racist slaveholders, and that is a much more complex discussion with many more gray areas and room for interpretations, but to pretend that the reason the states seceded and the confederacy was created was not for the purpose of slavery is simply wrong.
d-usa wrote: Considering all the text we have from the states that seceded and their leaders you have to either be ignorant of the truth or blind to it in order to believe otherwise.
You can argue that individuals fighting for the confederacy were not racist slaveholders, and that is a much more complex discussion with many more gray areas and room for interpretations, but to pretend that the reason the states seceded and the confederacy was created was not for the purpose of slavery is simply wrong.
Well you got me on that. I need someone who disagrees to argue otherwise.
Its very rational depending on the letters and other information provided at the time.
It was about state's rights including federal taxation impacting the southern planters vs. northern farmers. Unfortunately a major state right they were worried about was slavery.
Its very rational depending on the letters and other information provided at the time.
It was about state's rights including federal taxation impacting the southern planters vs. northern farmers. Unfortunately a major state right they were worried about was slavery.
I mean, in large part because their economy was wholly dependent on it and sharecropping.....
d-usa wrote: Considering all the text we have from the states that seceded and their leaders you have to either be ignorant of the truth or blind to it in order to believe otherwise.
You can argue that individuals fighting for the confederacy were not racist slaveholders, and that is a much more complex discussion with many more gray areas and room for interpretations, but to pretend that the reason the states seceded and the confederacy was created was not for the purpose of slavery is simply wrong.
Well you got me on that. I need someone who disagrees to argue otherwise.
Sorry, I meant to edit my post and make it clear that I was trying to talk about "you" in a general people sense and not you in particular.
Spending the past few weeks in Germany brought this whole thing in perspective as well. We have memorials to the German soldiers who died in both world wars in many cities, and people don't really argue that all Germans or all soldiers were nazis. But at the same time you also don't really find memorials to the leaders of Germany or national socialism, or memorials with the symbols of national socialism. You also don't really find people arguing that since not all Germans were nazis you should be able to fly the flag of nazi germany because it was about more than just anti-semitism and the holocaust was just one aspect of Germany during that time. Or people arguing that since Russians and Americans had war-crimes too we should be able to fly the nazi flag if people can fly their flags. The nazis gained power on the back of economic problems and bad feelings from sanctions imposed after WW1, and you don't really find people flying the flag as a symbols of a nations right to economic self determination of anything like that.
Not all people living in or fighting for the confederacy were slaveholders and/or racists, and some people on the union were slaveholdes and/or racist. But slavery and racism was the underlying reason the confederacy was formed, and the symbols of the confederacy will always represend the reason the confederacy existed.
Just because Germans in the Wehrmacht fought for their country and their families and didn't have anything to do with national socialism doesn't mean the national symbols of Nazi Germany are not symbols of racism.
Just because people in the confederate army fought for their state, country, and families and didn't have slaves and were not racist doesn't mean that the national and state symbols of the CSA were not racist
You might as well argue that taking down the Berlin wall was purging history as well. That wall stood for 40 years, its their history and heritage. Given a few hundred more years it would have been as notable as the great wall of china. And America could of had a nice franchise of good German food at the Berlin wall buffet chains with a nice statue of Hitler to greet you.
But nope, Regan just had to go and purge history.
Sculpture vs. wall? It's entirely unsurprising to me that you are incapable of seeing the difference.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
The Iron Cross isn't a racist symbol, unlike the Swastika has become. Its a long standing German honorific. And fortunately it didn't get tainted like the Swastika did.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
The Iron Cross isn't a racist symbol, unlike the Swastika has become. Its a long standing German honorific. And fortunately it didn't get tainted like the Swastika did.
It actually both preceded WW2, by about a hundred years, and succeeded it - it's still used, just without the swastika that was (relatively) briefly centered on it.
Also, Rommel is a great example with what D-USA said earlier, because it's difficult to claim a guy who refused orders to deport people to concentration camps and later participated in a plot to kill Hitler could be considered "glorifying Nazism". Honoring the man, not the ideology.
The Iron Cross is older than that actually I think. I believe it dates all the way back to the various Germanic knightly orders, if not directly than definitely its descended from that.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
IIRC German law specifically forbids monuments to WWII-era soldiers and politicians but I'd heard that there was a push to create something for Rommel anyway...not sure how it ever ended up.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
The one that I am aware of is the one where he killed himself to keep his family alive and protected. Of course he was also forced to kill himself by Hitler because he didnt follow orders to kill Jews and was linked to the assassination attempt agains Hitler.
The Iron Cross is another interesting symbol since it has a long connection to the German military before and after WW2, and the one on the memorial (as well as his grave) is a plain iron cross. I think the only "bad" iron cross is the one with the swastika on it, and soldiers who were issued the iron cross during WW2 were allowed to trade them in for non-nazi versions.
Rommel is a great example of soldiers not necessarily agreeing with the ideology of their countries leadership and how a Rommel the "Good German" doesn't make flying the swastika okay.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
The Iron Cross isn't a racist symbol, unlike the Swastika has become. Its a long standing German honorific. And fortunately it didn't get tainted like the Swastika did.
Not strictly true. White supremacists, and white prison gangs, use the Iron Cross and the Swastika.
That is the reason I chose NOT to make a t-shirt with the Black Templars logo to wear at game stores and conventions, sadly.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
The Iron Cross isn't a racist symbol, unlike the Swastika has become. Its a long standing German honorific. And fortunately it didn't get tainted like the Swastika did.
Not strictly true. White supremacists, and white prison gangs, use the Iron Cross and the Swastika.
Yes, but they usually use the Iron Cross as an alternative to the Swastika in an attempt to conceal themselves, not very well usually.
cincydooley wrote: Isn't there a memorial to Rommel with the Iron Cross on it?
The Iron Cross isn't a racist symbol, unlike the Swastika has become. Its a long standing German honorific. And fortunately it didn't get tainted like the Swastika did.
Not strictly true. White supremacists, and white prison gangs, use the Iron Cross and the Swastika.
Yes, but they usually use the Iron Cross as an alternative to the Swastika in an attempt to conceal themselves, not very well usually.
Exactly. Sadly, it's becoming a symbol for hatred.
If you saw this guy, would you think:
1. He's REALLY into Jesus.
2. He's REALLY into WWI German history and plays a painted army at his local game store and tournaments?
3. He's a gang member.
He might very well be a shipping clerk at the refinery down the street and got them because they looked cool, but it doesn't take long on google with Iron Cross Tattoo to figure out who is getting them.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose the Black Templar in your sig is a neonazi too
Super-Neo as he's from the future!
They are always talking about purging other races and whatnot...
Well, its hard to argue when those races are also trying to purge you in return. And they aren't actually a different race, they're a completely different species.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose the Black Templar in your sig is a neonazi too
Super-Neo as he's from the future!
They are always talking about purging other races and whatnot...
Well, its hard to argue when those races are also trying to purge you in return. And they aren't actually a different race, they're a completely different species.
Not even humans? Just what a space nazi would say!
You might as well argue that taking down the Berlin wall was purging history as well. That wall stood for 40 years, its their history and heritage. Given a few hundred more years it would have been as notable as the great wall of china. And America could of had a nice franchise of good German food at the Berlin wall buffet chains with a nice statue of Hitler to greet you.
But nope, Regan just had to go and purge history.
Sculpture vs. wall? It's entirely unsurprising to me that you are incapable of seeing the difference.
I'm not surprised you don't see the parallel. Ok then How about when Sudam Husseins statue was torn down? purging history?
Either way, just because the monuments come down, no one forgot why they were there. We just don't need to celebrate long dead racists to encourage new racists.
Either way, just because the monuments come down, no one forgot why they were there. We just don't need to celebrate long dead racists to encourage new racists.
Some of America's most influential presidents were racists.
just a few:
Washington
Jackson
Lincoln
Johnson (the Texan one)
Bill Clinton had a campaign slogan on top of the Stars and Bars.
Frazzled wrote: Don't care what you read, child. Thats what we called it.
I guess claiming to be 'older' doesn't make you actually right, so you attempt condescending trolling. I am perfectly comfortable in both my age and not perpetuating ignorance when facts are available.
Frazzled wrote: Don't care what you read, child. Thats what we called it.
I guess claiming to be 'older' doesn't make you actually right, so you attempt condescending trolling. I am perfectly comfortable in both my age and not perpetuating ignorance when facts are available.
Nomenclature is how its used. We used "Dixie" "Stars and Bars" "Rebel Flag" and "Southern Cross" interchangeably for the same flag. Don't care what others did or say it means. They can off and die.
Slightly OT, but I was just thinking about the title. The removal of the "stars and bars" from the state capital and other locations is not really "purging history". It was put there to protest the civil rights movement, and had nothing to do with history. Now if people were trying to get the actual flag of the confederacy removed, it would be different, but this is removing something that was put there for the purpose of being racist, with no historical context or value. The title should really be something along the lines of "The purge of history begins".
Co'tor Shas wrote: Slightly OT, but I was just thinking about the title. The removal of the "stars and bars" from the state capital and other locations is not really "purging history". It was put there to protest the civil rights movement, and had nothing to do with history. Now if people were trying to get the actual flag of the confederacy removed, it would be different, but this is removing something that was put there for the purpose of being racist, with no historical context or value. The title should really be something along the lines of "The purge of history begins".
Well, this has gone beyond that though. Such as Amazon removing anything to do with it. Apple removing games that has that flag in it. Ft. Sumter removing their flag.
Meh, they shouldn't be using it in the first place. They should be using the flag of the confederacy. Like, what would actually be flown. But maybe it's just me.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Meh, they shouldn't be using it in the first place. They should be using the flag of the confederacy. Like, what would actually be flown. But maybe it's just me.
Unless it's like, a Civil War game or book or other thing set during the Civil War in which the battle flag might reasonably appear (this is in reference to Amazon and Apple dropping certain products).
In Berlin there's an open park dedicated to Marx and Engels, with a statue of the two men at its centre. I actually found it kind of eerie, there was a quiet kind of power in the new meaning the statues had assumed. The East German government had built it to honour the two men who founded the system their government was based on, but now it stood as a quiet, empty statement on a really bad ideology that had finally passed in to history*.
The answer, then, is not to go chasing after symbols of the Confederacy, but to build knowledge of what the Confederacy really was, and so those symbols can't help but be understood in their true context. I hope one day that people who visit the memorial to Forrest can't help but reflect on the complex history that a war criminal and life long racist was once glorified, simply because a region of America had to pretend otherwise for their own pride.
*Well, passed in to history as far as Europe is concerned.
It's not a confederate symbol though, I think it has something to do with the military. You see them on lots of old military graves, just without the battle flag.
feeder wrote: Isn't the West Coast Choppers logo an Iron Cross? I used to see that t-shirt on everybody.
Yes. I would guess it was chosen because it works well with the name, and because variations of the Iron Cross have historically been very popular with bikers.
The Iron Cross goes all the way back to 1813
I knew it had some serious history behind it beyond the Third Reich. Did not know it went back to Napoleonic Wars
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe. Although wasn't it only one regiment who used it? Eh, whatever.
No, it was used by way more than one regiment. It was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
So more than a regiment then.
Honestly this is more do to with me being annoyed with people getting their history wrong than anything else. That being said, it's pretty dumb of apple etc taking things down because it has it in it. It's like banning huckleberry finn, or to kill q mockingbird because it has the "n-word" in it.
If it is historically accurate, there is pretty much never a problem. It's like complaining about sexism in a movie wet in the 50's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, I should probably clarify, I mean sexist characters, not the movie it'self being sexist.
You know, while I side with people who oppose removing historic symbols on this issue, I'm left suspicious of many of them because they've been so quiet when the historic myths go the other way. How many people who defend Forrest's memorial have mentioned spent any time at all talking about the awful things he did?
It just seems a very one way street - revel in Confederate myths, but if anything is done to push the opposing political slant on to history, then suddenly they're all for the sanctity of the historic record.
Jihadin wrote: One can respect their military accomplishments.
Hardly anyone view Guderain, Rommel, Manstein, etc etc etc as pure Nazi's
Sure. But I think pretty much anyone can see the difference between adoration given to Lee and that given to Guderian.
And then when you look at Forrest, who's relatively low rank and behaviour at Fort Pillow makes his memorial a bit like a memorial to someone like Erich von dem Bach, who oversaw the destruction of Warsaw following the uprising.
And then you just have to pay a little bit of attention to notice that so many people who talk about their military skill... don't seem to spend much time talking about the nasty stuff. That's the one sided nature again - if you want history then tell the whole history.
feeder wrote: Isn't the West Coast Choppers logo an Iron Cross? I used to see that t-shirt on everybody.
It was used in the middle ages before little Adolf used that.
The iron cross was used in Germany during first world war too. Just look at many of their Aircraft or even their tanks etc. In other words it was always part of the country before and during (and after) Hitler was ruling.
As a military award, the Iron Cross goes back to the Napoleonic Wars, but the symbol itself is from the 13th century, and is probably most famous at that time as the symbol of the Teutonic Knights (Guess what they did for a living, cause Adolf would have totally fit in )
Co'tor Shas wrote: Slightly OT, but I was just thinking about the title. The removal of the "stars and bars" from the state capital and other locations is not really "purging history". It was put there to protest the civil rights movement, and had nothing to do with history. Now if people were trying to get the actual flag of the confederacy removed, it would be different, but this is removing something that was put there for the purpose of being racist, with no historical context or value. The title should really be something along the lines of "The purge of history begins".
The answer, then, is not to go chasing after symbols of the Confederacy, but to build knowledge of what the Confederacy really was, and so those symbols can't help but be understood in their true context. I hope one day that people who visit the memorial to Forrest can't help but reflect on the complex history that a war criminal and life long racist was once glorified, simply because a region of America had to pretend otherwise for their own pride.
Good point Sebs.
Too bad Southern Apologists will NEVER let that happen.
The answer, then, is not to go chasing after symbols of the Confederacy, but to build knowledge of what the Confederacy really was, and so those symbols can't help but be understood in their true context. I hope one day that people who visit the memorial to Forrest can't help but reflect on the complex history that a war criminal and life long racist was once glorified, simply because a region of America had to pretend otherwise for their own pride.
Good point Sebs.
Too bad Southern Apologists will NEVER let that happen.
The answer, then, is not to go chasing after symbols of the Confederacy, but to build knowledge of what the Confederacy really was, and so those symbols can't help but be understood in their true context. I hope one day that people who visit the memorial to Forrest can't help but reflect on the complex history that a war criminal and life long racist was once glorified, simply because a region of America had to pretend otherwise for their own pride.
Good point Sebs.
Too bad Southern Apologists will NEVER let that happen.
Not when Yankees are telling us what to do.
But the yankees have nothing to do with it.
The governor of SC, a republican no less, called a vote and it was a 36-3 vote in the Senate, and the flag came down.
Memphis voted to move Forrest, and his descendants agreed, so he's being moved.
The south is cleaning up their image and I a yankee agree with what they are doing, but I can't tell them what to do.
Ok I might have been confused about that, I saw that they needed to consult with the family about the decision so since it was decided I assumed they had. But after looking again I can find no statements from named descendents of forrest saying anything. The sons of the confederate are claiming the forrest family is against it though.
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
As would your claim they did agree.
If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.
On another note, He has no living family today to disagree with anything.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/forrest.htm Thanks to Russell P. Dodge II and historian-author Shelby Foote, I have learned that he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to Mr. Foote, he had no children and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in the skies over Germany!
so as there's no family to disagree, he's as good as moved.
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
As would your claim they did agree.
If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.
And yet, you claim the family approved. Back that up.
The city counsel can vote to launch the remains into a black hole. They can vote to turn the grave into a manure dumping site. They can vote for whatever they want. A vote being passed means nothing if there are other steps, such as the family needing to approve. Even Wade, in his 2013 opinion trying to justify moving the bodies admits this. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2111054/forrest-opinion-revised.pdf
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
As would your claim they did agree.
If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.
And yet, you claim the family approved. Back that up.
The city counsel an vote to launch the remains into a black hole. They can vote to turn the grave into a manure dumping site. They can vote for whatever they want. A vote being passed means nothing if there are other steps, such as the family needing to approve. Even Wade, in his 2013 opinion trying to justify moving the bodies admits this.
Why did you ignore the fact he has no living family? Why did you ignore me already stating there are no quotes from the family? the family is making no claims one way or another as they are all gone. If you want to produce a descendant that says anything, feel free.
bodies have been moved before, its not some new thing. I would guess this one will be moved as well in the near future.
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
As would your claim they did agree.
If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.
And yet, you claim the family approved. Back that up.
The city counsel an vote to launch the remains into a black hole. They can vote to turn the grave into a manure dumping site. They can vote for whatever they want. A vote being passed means nothing if there are other steps, such as the family needing to approve. Even Wade, in his 2013 opinion trying to justify moving the bodies admits this.
Why did you ignore the fact he has no living family? Why did you ignore me already stating there are no quotes from the family? the family is making no claims one way or another as they are all gone. If you want to produce a descendant that says anything, feel free.
bodies have been moved before, its not some new thing. I would guess this one will be moved as well in the near future.
Why do you ignore what the legal opinion by the guy wanting to move the bodies says?
Any interested person, which essentially means any surviving spouse and children or the nearest relative or relatives by consanguinity of any one or more of the deceased persons whose remains are burried in a burial ground, must be made a party to any such suit.
It does not have to be a direct descendent. So again, back up your claim, or admit you are talking out of your ass.
sebster wrote: You know, while I side with people who oppose removing historic symbols on this issue, I'm left suspicious of many of them because they've been so quiet when the historic myths go the other way. How many people who defend Forrest's memorial have mentioned spent any time at all talking about the awful things he did?
It just seems a very one way street - revel in Confederate myths, but if anything is done to push the opposing political slant on to history, then suddenly they're all for the sanctity of the historic record.
If you have enough history you're bound to revel in myth. Technically the founding fathers set the situation in motion with their get rich quick with the least effort approach. Worrying about every perceived flaw gets you nowhere. Noboby is living in the past or suffering from Bedford, nor George Washington. Do we remove all slaver-loving dead people? Sleeping dogs? Do I have to question everything about history and live in panic b/c somebody might disagree with my lack of giving a damn about their perceived suffering? I'm not suggesting you recommend that., just springs to mind.
Well, Obama is in Oklahoma and we had many groups of protesters meeting him with confederate flags to stand up to him and send a message. I'm sure the message they think they were sending and the message most people got is different, but at least my state managed to put on their best possible show again...
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
As would your claim they did agree.
If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.
On another note, He has no living family today to disagree with anything.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/forrest.htm Thanks to Russell P. Dodge II and historian-author Shelby Foote, I have learned that he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to Mr. Foote, he had no children and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in the skies over Germany!
so as there's no family to disagree, he's as good as moved.
Ah, no, that's more a sign that the city is moving ahead with the exhumation in violation of the family's wishes, which is within the city's power to do (there's no magic shield around the grave that requires a family member to unseal), even if not necessarily legal. Also, even if your family only ever has daughters, and your daughters only ever have daughters, you will still have a long line of descendants. It is not "who carries the family name" but "who can trace a line back through their family tree".
This is America, our cities (and states) like to do things in violation of the law all the fething time.
d-usa wrote: Well, Obama is in Oklahoma and we had many groups of protesters meeting him with confederate flags to stand up to him and send a message. I'm sure the message they think they were sending and the message most people got is different, but at least my state managed to put on their best possible show again...
Well my forward-thinking state is ahead of the curve. Somebody rammed a minivan* into a confederate soldier statue in Reidsville NC about a year ago. I'm sure they would ram any other trace of history if O showed up in the great southern state of NC.
who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.
As would your claim they did agree.
If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.
On another note, He has no living family today to disagree with anything.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/forrest.htm Thanks to Russell P. Dodge II and historian-author Shelby Foote, I have learned that he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to Mr. Foote, he had no children and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in the skies over Germany!
so as there's no family to disagree, he's as good as moved.
Tennessee Historical Society has to agree to the move before they can do anythin actually.
I had heard that the Forrest family had donated the land the park is on to the city, if they would keep his remains there. I haven't found anything at all to confirm that, so it's just hearsay near as I can tell.
As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights. Even the North was fighting about states right until Lincoln made the war about slavery about half way through, to preempt England and France intervening.
Two, might I remind you all that there *is* a first amendment, and, further, digging up dead people to defile their corpses really doesn't solve anything.
Ask Germany.
Three: this does absolutely NOTHING to solve the underlying issues. It just makes it look like your elected officials are doing something, when, in fact, they are doing nothing. You could dig up every dead Confederate solider from the Keys to Maine, and New York to California, and burn every Confederate flag there ever was, is, or will be. And it will do absolutely nothing.
You can't legislate away hate. And by picking out this particular group, you just ensure they are there all the longer.
As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.
...a state's right to what?
However you want to define it, it's ultimately about the slavery. The side that initiated the war did it to protect that institution. It can be cloaked in whatever guise one pleases, but even if you want to talk about state's rights, you're still talking about the right to hold people in bondage, against their will and without having committed any offense.
You can also look at each of the secessionist declarations, the continuance of the institution of slavery is the central and overriding concern in each, as is explicit anger at the idea of equality with "the negro" in several, and generally implicit in the others.
It’s a good line and also very true. If we’ve learned one thing from the social movements of the last century, it’s that very little gets accomplished when people just come in on a high moral horse. Typically those people are far more interested in making themselves feel morally superior than in actually improving the situation.
Same thing here. It’s up to the South to address this. Given the recent actions it seems progress is being made.
As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.
...a state's right to what?
However you want to define it, it's ultimately about the slavery. The side that initiated the war did it to protect that institution. It can be cloaked in whatever guise one pleases, but even if you want to talk about state's rights, you're still talking about the right to hold people in bondage, against their will and without having committed any offense.
You can also look at each of the secessionist declarations, the continuance of the institution of slavery is the central and overriding concern in each, as is explicit anger at the idea of equality with "the negro" in several, and generally implicit in the others.
The way I like to say is that states' rights was the cause, slavery was the reason.
As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.
...a state's right to what?
However you want to define it, it's ultimately about the slavery. The side that initiated the war did it to protect that institution. It can be cloaked in whatever guise one pleases, but even if you want to talk about state's rights, you're still talking about the right to hold people in bondage, against their will and without having committed any offense.
You can also look at each of the secessionist declarations, the continuance of the institution of slavery is the central and overriding concern in each, as is explicit anger at the idea of equality with "the negro" in several, and generally implicit in the others.
The way I like to say is that states' rights was the cause, slavery was the reason.
Maybe? But I don't see the southern states as having been willing to go to war for states rights over anything else. States rights was the argument raised to protect slavery, but it's hard to see where the nebulous and rather cerebral issue of "states rights" would have motivated people to war on their neighbors. The more mundane, money and property, is almost always the real issue.
Right to anything. See, one thing the Constitution did not do well was define the line between State and Federal authority. While slavery was the issue between them, they central crux of it was if the Federal government had the authority to abolish it, or even regulate it.
The southern states felt that Lincoln, a Republican, was going to force the issue militarily, and decided to preempt him.
Something that people don't seem to grasp today was that the average person's national identity was not that one was an 'American' but rather that one was a New Yorker. Or a Virginian, or a Pennsylvanian. and so on. (Picture every state as Texas, if that helps) The US was a lot more like the UN than an actual countryto the average person. I don't think it takes Frazz to tell you what the average Texan would do if the UN invaded.
Slavery was the issue that the Fed was pushing, so, yes, it turns up due to the knee jerk response that the people had.
Technically, by the way, the South was right. The US Federal government, at that time, did not actually have the authority to do most of what it did under Lincoln. Congress voted to grant Lincoln what effectively amounted to unlimited power for the duration, and he more or less tossed out the Constitution, most notably trial by Jury, but also free speech, right to assemble, and so on.
As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.
...a state's right to what?
To leave the union, most specifically. But yes, there were in fact a number of other reasons beyond slavery that the confederates wanted to leave the union. Slavery was a really big one, but not the only one.
JNC wrote: If you have enough history you're bound to revel in myth. Technically the founding fathers set the situation in motion with their get rich quick with the least effort approach. Worrying about every perceived flaw gets you nowhere.
Noboby is living in the past or suffering from Bedford, nor George Washington. Do we remove all slaver-loving dead people? Sleeping dogs? Do I have to question everything about history and live in panic b/c somebody might disagree with my lack of giving a damn about their perceived suffering? I'm not suggesting you recommend that., just springs to mind.
I’m not suggesting the memorial is moved. I’m opposed to that. History is history, part of that history is the Civil War, and part of it is the effort afterwards to glorify people and the South in general for something they really shouldn’t have been glorified for. Leave it as is and teach people accurate history so they can understand this in it’s proper context.
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights. Even the North was fighting about states right until Lincoln made the war about slavery about half way through, to preempt England and France intervening.
Yeah, see, this is the actual problem. Leave the memorial in place but get people to understand the real reasons the South fought the war.
Right to anything. See, one thing the Constitution did not do well was define the line between State and Federal authority. While slavery was the issue between them, they central crux of it was if the Federal government had the authority to abolish it, or even regulate it.
The southern states felt that Lincoln, a Republican, was going to force the issue militarily, and decided to preempt him.
Something that people don't seem to grasp today was that the average person's national identity was not that one was an 'American' but rather that one was a New Yorker. Or a Virginian, or a Pennsylvanian. and so on. (Picture every state as Texas, if that helps) The US was a lot more like the UN than an actual countryto the average person. I don't think it takes Frazz to tell you what the average Texan would do if the UN invaded.
I get that, I really do. It's still strong in many areas even today. I don't fail to grasp that people saw themselves as citizens of their state not a larger "US". But slavery was the only thing which people were willing to go to war over. They didn't and weren't going to go out and kill each other to defend states rights over any other issue.
Slavery was the issue that the Fed was pushing, so, yes, it turns up due to the knee jerk response that the people had.
Technically, by the way, the South was right. The US Federal government, at that time, did not actually have the authority to do most of what it did under Lincoln. Congress voted to grant Lincoln what effectively amounted to unlimited power for the duration, and he more or less tossed out the Constitution, most notably trial by Jury, but also free speech, right to assemble, and so on.
You're right that they didn't have the authority at the time, but Lincoln and the Federal government hadn't intended to do so either, at least not over any existing slavery territory/state. Lincoln had no plans to do so going into office, and resisted such until doing so became another weapon with which to wage the war, and even that took almost two years of war before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and two years longer to abolish the institution entirely within the US. The South went to war because they didn't like the election results and assumed that Lincoln would try to abolish slavery, but there's no evidence to indicate he was going to or that the other arms of the Federal government would have followed him in doing so, and only through that action of initiating a war did the South both put abolition on the front-burner agenda (as opposed to control of its expansion into new states/territories) and make it possible.
As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.
...a state's right to what?
To leave the union, most specifically. But yes, there were in fact a number of other reasons beyond slavery that the confederates wanted to leave the union. Slavery was a really big one, but not the only one.
Pretty much they all lead back to Slavery one way or the other. it was not possible to extricate slavery from secession. Leaving the union was only considered to protect slavery. Even the other issues related to trade were intrinsically linked to a slavery based economy. You can look at each state's declaration of secession, slavery was the front and center issue that fed into everything else.
In Austria there’s a museum to the Austrian resistance effort against the Nazis. You walk in and in the first room there’s a very frank statement that resistance was minimal and almost entirely ineffective. It then goes on to explain that this museum was created in the wake of the war when Austrians wanted to distance themselves from their part Nazi atrocities, this was part of building a narrative where they were unwilling participants who bravely resisted where they could. So for a long time this building was filled with exciting and brave stories of resistance to the Nazis. Except those stories were way out of context, and often hid how irrelevant and small scale the operations were. It took a long time but eventually this narrative was undone by the realities of history.
They could have concluded this by removing the museum, renaming it and giving it another purpose, but they chose another way. Admirably they left the museum with its original name, and then used it to not only to remember the Austrian victims, but also to remember the effort to scrub Austria’s contribution to those atrocities.
That seems a very mature and admirable way for a society to understand its history, I think.
Some states had already left the Union peaceably and properly before Lincoln was inaugurated. Shortly after, Lincoln issued a call for 500,000 soldiers to put down "the rebellion".
The war really started when when the federal army invaded Virginia. Virginia had at first voted not to secede, but after Lincoln's call to arms voted again and seceded.
snurl wrote: Some states had already left the Union peaceably and properly before Lincoln was inaugurated. Shortly after, Lincoln issued a call for 500,000 soldiers to put down "the rebellion". The war really started when when the federal army invaded Virginia. Virginia had at first voted not to secede, but after Lincoln's call to arms voted again and seceded.
That peaceable secession involved the attack on Fort Sumter. No-one died, but it's still pretty silly to call bombarding a fort peaceful.
snurl wrote: Some states had already left the Union peaceably and properly before Lincoln was inaugurated. Shortly after, Lincoln issued a call for 500,000 soldiers to put down "the rebellion".
The war really started when when the federal army invaded Virginia. Virginia had at first voted not to secede, but after Lincoln's call to arms voted again and seceded.
If I'm remembering correctly, there were no call-ups until *after* Confederate forces attacked and seized a Federal US military installation in South Carolina.
I can find stuff on 75,000 *after* the fall of Fort Sumter, and after the first battle of Bull Run there as an authorization for up to 500,00 troops, but I don't remember anything about a call up for 500,000 any time near his inauguration One also has to remember at Bull Run that the US capitol was in play, suburbs of DC extend well into Virginia. Southern forces were already in the area and were a direct threat to the capitol, and hostilities between Confederate and Federal forces had already commenced months earlier. The idea that it was some sort of "invasion" in that sense is rather silly. It was a central focal point where everyone already had armies massing and a clash was largely inevitable, almost certainly in Virginia because anywhere else would be literally in DC.
Fort Sumter was under direct orders from the war office NOT to surrender under any circumstances. You know, the war office, where Lincoln hung out on a daily basis. It was just the excuse he needed to set the troops in motion.
While we're at it, lets talk about Forrest, the war criminal, mostly in reference to the massacre at Fort Pillow. Forrest's troops surrounded the fort in superior numbers, and asked for surrender, which was declined. The confederates assaulted the fort, took casualties, (that the troops felt were unnecessary) and encountered union troops that tried to surrender immediately after firing upon them. I don't think I'd stop shooting under similar circumstances.
No one seems to mention Forrest's life after he attempted to disband the klan. He became quite the champion of black rights, providing funding for them to attend schools and colleges.
snurl wrote: Fort Sumter was under direct orders from the war office NOT to surrender under any circumstances. You know, the war office, where Lincoln hung out on a daily basis. It was just the excuse he needed to set the troops in motion.
Well of course the fort was under orders not to surrender. Having forts that surrender to polite requests kind of defeats the purpose of having forts.
So, faced with a fort that is controlled by the Feds in your now seceded state, and shocked that the Feds aren't just giving up and going home despite your polite request, you have the option to tolerate the fort while you attempt negotiation to properly leave the union, or you can just attack that fort. Both options are understandable, but if you opt for the latter then you have to accept that when people hundreds of years later try to claim you didn't start hostilities, then they're going to get laughed at.
While we're at it, lets talk about Forrest, the war criminal, mostly in reference to the massacre at Fort Pillow. Forrest's troops surrounded the fort in superior numbers, and asked for surrender, which was declined. The confederates assaulted the fort, took casualties, (that the troops felt were unnecessary) and encountered union troops that tried to surrender immediately after firing upon them. I don't think I'd stop shooting under similar circumstances.
snurl wrote: Fort Sumter was under direct orders from the war office NOT to surrender under any circumstances. You know, the war office, where Lincoln hung out on a daily basis. It was just the excuse he needed to set the troops in motion.
Doesn't change the fact that the South started the war by attacking and seizing a US army installation. Lincoln didn't force these guys to attack the fort, they consciously chose to initiate the conflict, and the fort got orders to hold because it was a federal military installation and wasn't just going to be handed over because someone mad about the recent presidential election asked.
While we're at it, lets talk about Forrest, the war criminal, mostly in reference to the massacre at Fort Pillow. Forrest's troops surrounded the fort in superior numbers, and asked for surrender, which was declined. The confederates assaulted the fort, took casualties, (that the troops felt were unnecessary) and encountered union troops that tried to surrender immediately after firing upon them. I don't think I'd stop shooting under similar circumstances.
The defenders of Fort Pillow weren't simply shot only in the heat of the moment, the Confederates lost 14 men killed, while nearly 300 Union troops were killed, and all the black troops that came into Confederate hands were shot even after no longer being armed. Sources from both sides were pretty clear that there was a massacre. Trying to whitewash it as a simple heat of the moment thing flies in the face of pretty much all the evidence and the conclusions of multiple investigations of the incident. You don't get a 20-1 kill ratio just from a "heat of the moment" action. Either way, Forrest was in command, his is the responsibility.
Lets not forget it's not the choice of the grunts to surrender when an enemy officer asks, if their own officers refuse, they don't get to just give up. They'll try when they see it's clear they've been overrun, but they don't have much of a choice before that.
No one seems to mention Forrest's life after he attempted to disband the klan. He became quite the champion of black rights, providing funding for them to attend schools and colleges.
A "champion" of black rights is perhaps a wee bit of an exaggeration. IIRC he made a single speech on the matter. While yes, it was conciliatory and a radical departure from his earlier views, it does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. It's a mitigating factor, sure, but not something that absolves him of everything.
snurl wrote: South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.
And forts typically don't surrender to rebels simply when asked, particularly when many on both sides don't think it'll actually come to violence.
To be fair, even if there had not been an attack on Fort Sumter, there evertually would have been a Union attack on the Confederacy since the primary war aim of the Union was to preserve the Union and this required elimination of the Confederacy which pretty much could only be accomplished by force.
WEST POINT, N.Y. ─ Following the decision of the South Carolina government to remove the Confederate flag from a state memorial, and the subsequent, nation-wide uproar over all things Confederate, West Point has announced that it will posthumously revoke the diplomas of all cadets who graduated from the Academy and fought for the South during the Civil War.
“This sends a clear message to slave-owners and those who would fight for such a horrific cause that 150 years after most of them died we will not tolerate such atrocities on American soil,” said Lt. Col. Thomas Jackson, a spokesman for the school.
...USMA leaders are debating the merits of removing Gen. Robert E. Lee’s half of the Appomattox surrender document that ended the Civil War, currently stored in the Cadet Library.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, even if there had not been an attack on Fort Sumter, there evertually would have been a Union attack on the Confederacy since the primary war aim of the Union was to preserve the Union and this required elimination of the Confederacy which pretty much could only be accomplished by force.
Yep. According to the letters I have written by family members who fought in the Civil War for the Union, they didn't care about the slavery issue, but were instead concerned about preserving the Union. In fact, going by the letters, there appeared to be quite a bit of hostility between the southern Blacks and the Union soldiers.
Relapse wrote: In fact, going by the letters, there appeared to be quite a bit of hostility between the southern Blacks and the Union soldiers.
One of the forgotten oddities of the Civil War and Abolition. It's part of where the term 'Uncle Tom' comes from (besides you know... The book... named Uncle Tom's Cabin ). There are always people who find ways to thrive, even as members of an oppressed group, and such individuals can find themselves with a pretty good quality of life. Such individuals tend to not be happy when the status quo changes anymore than their masters. It's the only world view they know, and especially compared to their peers working the cotton fields, and even poorer white farmers, some slaves who worked in wealthy homes or as man servants (purely objectively speaking) had it pretty good and didn't respond well to the whole abolition thing.
Slaves with almost as much a stake in the institution of slavery as slave owners (that's called Irony )
Relapse wrote: In fact, going by the letters, there appeared to be quite a bit of hostility between the southern Blacks and the Union soldiers.
One of the forgotten oddities of the Civil War and Abolition. It's part of where the term 'Uncle Tom' comes from (besides you know... The book... named Uncle Tom's Cabin ). There are always people who find ways to thrive, even as members of an oppressed group, and such individuals can find themselves with a pretty good quality of life. Such individuals tend to not be happy when the status quo changes anymore than their masters. It's the only world view they know, and especially compared to their peers working the cotton fields, and even poorer white farmers, some slaves who worked in wealthy homes or as man servants (purely objectively speaking) had it pretty good and didn't respond well to the whole abolition thing.
Slaves with almost as much a stake in the institution of slavery as slave owners (that's called Irony )
See: Samuel L Jackson's character in Django Unchained.
snurl wrote: South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.
The fort doesn't matter. Repeat. The fort. Does not. Matter.
Hostilities were initiated the moment Southern States started shouting "screw you guys I'm going home!", as secession is, political speaking, an inherently aggressive action (rebellion is fighting words). There's a lot of nonsense in Southern Apologism, but the whole "North started it" is by far the most nonsensical. The South declared it intention to fight the North before any shots were fired, whether the people involved realized that was what they were doing or not.
snurl wrote: South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.
The fort doesn't matter. Repeat. The fort. Does not. Matter.
Hostilities were initiated the moment Southern States started shouting "screw you guys I'm going home!", as secession is, political speaking, an inherently aggressive action (rebellion is fighting words). There's a lot of nonsense in Southern Apologism, but the whole "North started it" is by far the most nonsensical. The South declared it intention to fight the North before any shots were fired, whether the people involved realized that was what they were doing or not.
I take it you're going to gloss over the fact that the southern states had the right to secede guarenteed by the Constitution? Their reasons are irrelevant, they had the right to take their ball and go home if they wanted.
I take it you're going to gloss over the fact that the southern states had the right to secede guarenteed by the Constitution?
There is no such right elaborated in the Constitution, and when the Supreme Court was asked it found that no right existed (Texas v White, which ultimately found that no right to secede existed and that in fact secession runs counter to the purpose of the Constitution to make a "more perfect union"). Which makes complete sense mind you, because no state could function if territories could just leave whenever they wanted.
Their reasons are irrelevant, they had the right to take their ball and go home if they wanted.
Go find me a country that works that way. I'll wait.
I take it you're going to gloss over the fact that the southern states had the right to secede guarenteed by the Constitution?
There is no such right elaborated in the Constitution, and when the Supreme Court was asked it found that no right existed (Texas v White, which ultimately found that no right to secede existed and that in fact secession runs counter to the purpose of the Constitution to make a "more perfect union"). Which makes complete sense mind you, because no state could function if territories could just leave whenever they wanted.
Texas v White, a case after the ACW when the Union had already demonstrated that they would allow no state to secede? I find that hardly relevant to anything.
Their reasons are irrelevant, they had the right to take their ball and go home if they wanted.
Go find me a country that works that way. I'll wait.
How about the EU? Not necessarily a country, but it is a union of several sovereign nations much like how the states viewed themselves.
Texas v White, a case after the ACW when the Union had already demonstrated that they would allow no state to secede?
Which I might add, just brings me to my second point; No sane state just lets territories secede, and even in an age where the 'right to secession' was at least debatable in America, the North was never going to let the South leave and only a fool would actually expect to be able to secede without having to fight. Hell, the secession bit of it, wasn't even much of a case. That decision is pretty much the height of rationality. "Of course you can't unilaterally secede that defeats the whole purpose of having a Union. Are we seriously having to explain this to you?" (quote from the Supreme Court to Texas that I just made up )
That's before we even get into the meat and potatoes of Texas v White itself, which is a really nice piece of reading on the subject of legitimate authority and sovereignty all on its own even without the whole Texas legislature selling US Bonds thing.
I find that hardly relevant to anything.
I know you don't.
How about the EU? Not necessarily a country, but it is a union of several sovereign nations much like how the states viewed themselves.
You're right it's not a country, and even then, look at all the hoops they are jumping through to keep Greece in the EU, not just to protect the Euro and the European market, but because the entire idea of the EU collapses into complete failure if they just let Greece leave, default, or kick Greece out. Any such scenario is the end of the EU as a practical body..
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."
It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.
Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?
Honestly, much like the fort, it doesn't really matter. As I keep saying, no state is going to let territories just leave of their own accord. The reality is that there has never been, and never will be, anywhere a right to secede in any country (until an actual functioning Social Anarchist government comes into existence mind you but I'm skeptical that will ever happen so I'm not counting it ). The only way to leave a country, is for said country to let you leave, in which case you aren't seceding so much as being granted independence, or to fight said country until it recognizes your independence. The entire idea of secession runs completely counter to the concept of nation and the only country that would enshrine it as a right is one that doesn't expect to exist for very long.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."
It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.
Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?
It appears I was wrong. My fault for just parroting what I heard without checking myself.
It's really embarrassing because I read this exact same exchange in the Flag thread.
Thanks for admitting your error. That actually helps discussions.
Why is challenging the celebration/honoring of people who took arms against America considered erasing history? These figures are still in the history books, right?
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..."
It seems pretty clear to me, though I am not a scholar of constitutional law.
Perhaps you could point out the section that grants the right to secede?
It appears I was wrong. My fault for just parroting what I heard without checking myself.
It's really embarrassing because I read this exact same exchange in the Flag thread.
Thanks for admitting your error. That actually helps discussions.
Why is challenging the celebration/honoring of people who took arms against America considered erasing history? These figures are still in the history books, right?
For Dukes of Hazard I do wish the stations had gone with something like Warner Brothers did for the Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry releases:
I feel it's a good way of saying "This was and is something that hurt people and we recognize times have changed" without going full MIB blinky red light thing.
Um
I was a Duke of Hazard fan
Do not remember racial "play" in the show or racial undertone like the Warner Cartoons
Been awhile so I could be outright wrong.
Could be influence to being Daisy Duke was my first Crush
Edit
Though my MatchBox General Lee got abused seriously and eventually met its end with a hammer in Crash Up Derby
Same as the Love Bug
Dune Buggy cartoon one
Night Rider one
Mach 5
......
Jihadin wrote: Um
I was a Duke of Hazard fan
Do not remember racial "play" in the show or racial undertone like the Warner Cartoons
Been awhile so I could be outright wrong.
Could be influence to being Daisy Duke was my first Crush
Er, that's the example from the Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry releases. I didn't mean that they should use it verbatim, but rather a "we know the Flag is in there and it may bother some people, but blah blah blah" type of disclaimer that would keep Dukes of Hazard on the air.
Jihadin wrote: Um
I was a Duke of Hazard fan
Do not remember racial "play" in the show or racial undertone like the Warner Cartoons
Been awhile so I could be outright wrong.
Could be influence to being Daisy Duke was my first Crush
Edit
Though my MatchBox General Lee got abused seriously and eventually met its end with a hammer in Crash Up Derby
Same as the Love Bug
Dune Buggy cartoon one
Night Rider one
Mach 5
......
Next thing you know, people will be getting into trouble for tying dynamite to arrows and shooting them!
Scout Snipers had been using that SS logo for a long time. Nobody in the chain of command had any issue with it until that pic got loose on the internet and people decided to complain about on social media. Nobody in the unit did anything that violates UMCJ or was deserving of a court martial. There's a very lengthy history of non pc unit patches and flashes all through the armed forces. It's not a big deal.
And yet it still ended up everywhere with a bunch of soldiers standing in front of an SS flag. Battlefield humor or not it was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
And yet it still ended up everywhere with a bunch of soldiers standing in front of an SS flag. Battlefield humor or not it was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
These guys got reamed out and slammed for this. Weapon safety
This Marine got slammed. "Conduct Unbecoming"
Paperwork was started for UCMJ action. Yet the argument was coming from Stateside so CoC said basically "Feth you".
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
The same could be said of Washington and the other founding fathers had they lost the Revolutionary War.
And?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Man, people just have no fething clue what Intentionalism, or the differentiation between ideals expressed and behavior are, do they?
My, how things have changed, but stayed the same...
Charlie Chaplain spanks the gak out of any modern actor and most modern political demagogues. Speech is from the end of the Great Dictator (a film I recommend).
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
The same could be said of Washington and the other founding fathers had they lost the Revolutionary War.
And?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Man, people just have no fething clue what Intentionalism, or the differentiation between ideals expressed and behavior are, do they?
We are doomed.
MB
Coming from someone with many entertaining stories of shooting people down in the street, then saying we need more gun control, that's fairly ironic.
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
The same could be said of Washington and the other founding fathers had they lost the Revolutionary War.
And?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Man, people just have no fething clue what Intentionalism, or the differentiation between ideals expressed and behavior are, do they?
We are doomed.
MB
Coming from someone with many entertaining stories of shooting people down in the street, then saying we need more gun control, that's fairly ironic.
And this just provides evidence for my point.
Understanding Intentionalism, and where and when it is applicable has absolutely nothing to do with having shot people (considering people don't seem to understand WHY I shot who I did, when I did, and the situation).
This is a clumsy attempt at trying to divert the attention from the issue raised; Trying to shout "Squirrel!" but ultimately failing.
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
The same could be said of Washington and the other founding fathers had they lost the Revolutionary War.
And?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Man, people just have no fething clue what Intentionalism, or the differentiation between ideals expressed and behavior are, do they?
We are doomed.
MB
Coming from someone with many entertaining stories of shooting people down in the street, then saying we need more gun control, that's fairly ironic.
And this just provides evidence for my point.
Understanding Intentionalism, and where and when it is applicable has absolutely nothing to do with having shot people (considering people don't seem to understand WHY I shot who I did, when I did, and the situation).
This is a clumsy attempt at trying to divert the attention from the issue raised; Trying to shout "Squirrel!" but ultimately failing.
MB
Not clumsy at all. Just showing you have a double standard that clouds your opinion. First you make up a story about shooting someone, then turn around a couple threads later saying guns are evil. You express the ideals of gun control, yet walk about with the stated intention of shooting people.
Now if you'd like to continue the discussion without passive aggressive attacks that brought about my response about your heroic stories of yourself, and ask me why I said that about the Founding Fathers, I would be happy to elaborate.
Many of them were erected for the wrong reasons, and glorifying people who were Traitors, and allied to/fighting for a cause that was based upon an evil foundation is not something we should be honoring or glorifying.
Correcting mistakes of the past is what nations need to do in order to move past those mistakes.
As long as we continue to honor the Confederacy as any type of "Heroic figures" we will remain fighting the Civil War.
The South Lost. It is time we reinforced that fact.
MB
The same could be said of Washington and the other founding fathers had they lost the Revolutionary War.
And?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Man, people just have no fething clue what Intentionalism, or the differentiation between ideals expressed and behavior are, do they?
We are doomed.
MB
Coming from someone with many entertaining stories of shooting people down in the street, then saying we need more gun control, that's fairly ironic.
And this just provides evidence for my point.
Understanding Intentionalism, and where and when it is applicable has absolutely nothing to do with having shot people (considering people don't seem to understand WHY I shot who I did, when I did, and the situation).
This is a clumsy attempt at trying to divert the attention from the issue raised; Trying to shout "Squirrel!" but ultimately failing.
MB
Not clumsy at all. Just showing you have a double standard that clouds your opinion. First you make up a story about shooting someone, then turn around a couple threads later saying guns are evil. You express the ideals of gun control, yet walk about with the stated intention of shooting people.
Now if you'd like to continue the discussion without passive aggressive attacks that brought about my response about your heroic stories of yourself, and ask me why I said that about the Founding Fathers, I would be happy to elaborate.
Understanding Intentionalism is not contradictory to having shot people, nor is it a double standard.
All intentionalism is about is WHY you might shoot people (or do anything else), and when it would be ethical to do so.
I NEVER said "Guns are evil."
That would be someone reading something into it that wasn't said (I DID say that Guns are a tool that was invented to kill people (or animals - but, it was invented to kill people, specifically) more easily. But this does not automatically make them evil (and a belief that this statement IS saying they are evil would again be a failure to understand Intentionalism).
Not to mention that is completely irrelevant to the issues of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers vs. their actions (it is possible for intentions and behavior to not line up - the important thing is that they eventually line up, along with the intended consequences of that behavior).
And yet it still ended up everywhere with a bunch of soldiers standing in front of an SS flag. Battlefield humor or not it was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
These guys got reamed out and slammed for this.
Because it was stupid and they should have known better. Battlefield humor isn't an excuse for that level of idiocy.
BaronIveagh wrote: So was George Washington, but he's hailed all over as a great hero. The difference being simply that he won.
Unless George Washington had his men fire on troops who were attempting to surrender, I have no idea what your point has to do with anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
snurl wrote: South Carolina had been seceded for several months, and the surrender of the fort had been requested several times.
They declared their secession, and the Feds said no. No part of that means the Feds should pack up stakes and abandon their forts, that's complete fething nonsense, basically just a complete rejection of the idea of government.
Now, obviously, when the Feds say no then that means war is likely if terms can't be reached. And there's really nothing wrong with the decision to go to war. It's just that once you make that decision and attack the fort, its really silly for people years later to claim that wasn't the original act of aggression.
Prestor Jon wrote: Scout Snipers had been using that SS logo for a long time. Nobody in the chain of command had any issue with it until that pic got loose on the internet and people decided to complain about on social media.
Yeah, the problem wasn't with our armed forces deployed overseas displaying Nazi iconography, it was with the SJWs who complained about it.
You can only read gak like this and laugh
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: This Marine got slammed. "Conduct Unbecoming"
Paperwork was started for UCMJ action. Yet the argument was coming from Stateside so CoC said basically "Feth you".
LordofHats wrote: Which I might add, just brings me to my second point; No sane state just lets territories secede, and even in an age where the 'right to secession' was at least debatable in America, the North was never going to let the South leave and only a fool would actually expect to be able to secede without having to fight. Hell, the secession bit of it, wasn't even much of a case. That decision is pretty much the height of rationality. "Of course you can't unilaterally secede that defeats the whole purpose of having a Union. Are we seriously having to explain this to you?" (quote from the Supreme Court to Texas that I just made up )
There are instances. Pakistan seceded from India, it was hardly peaceable but the deaths were more spontaneous racial violence - there was no government effort to resist secession. There's been some Balkan events as well - Finland was granted independance by Lenin after the revolution, and Norway and Sweden seperated in two at the turn of the last century.
But yeah, its extraordinarily uncommon for regions to secede from a stable government with no resistance - most examples involves cases where the central government is or has collapsed. Reality is if you want independence you better want it bad enough to start a war, because that's almost certainly what it's going to take.
Prestor Jon wrote: Scout Snipers had been using that SS logo for a long time. Nobody in the chain of command had any issue with it until that pic got loose on the internet and people decided to complain about on social media.
Yeah, the problem wasn't with our armed forces deployed overseas displaying Nazi iconography, it was with the SJWs who complained about it.
You can only read gak like this and laugh
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: This Marine got slammed. "Conduct Unbecoming"
Paperwork was started for UCMJ action. Yet the argument was coming from Stateside so CoC said basically "Feth you".
I mention this before
There's what You know and there's what is known.
MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — Smoking kills. When necessary, so do Marines.
Ideally, the two shouldn't mix. Marines must maintain peak physical fitness for the rigors of combat — not to mention the Corps' new Combat Fitness Test. Yet the most recent Marine Corps Quality of Life survey, conducted in 2007 and released this past summer, found that nearly 32 percent of leathernecks smoke.
That's down slightly from the 2002 survey, but the figure is noticeably higher than the national average, estimated by the American Cancer Society to be about 21 percent, and a bit higher than the percentage of 18- to 24-year-old civilians who ignore the surgeon general's ubiquitous warnings.
Another 21 percent of Marines — the highest number in the military, according to 2005 Defense Department statistics — use smokeless tobacco.
And while cigarette sales at base exchanges are down this year, smokeless tobacco tins are flying off the shelves with double-digit increases over a year ago, according to Marine Corps Community Services.
It's not the news Marine officials like to hear, but it comes as no real shock either. Throughout the military, smoking is making an unwelcome comeback, reversing a nearly 20-year decline and running counter to civilian trends. Today, the Defense Department spends about $875 million on tobacco-related health care costs.
GO's were pissed that he was glamorized for smoking and he was down to two packs of Marlboro. Actually
2004-11-18 04:00:00 PDT Fallujah, Iraq -- The Marlboro man was angry: He has a war to fight, and he's running out of smokes.
"If you want to write something," he tells an intruding reporter, "tell Marlboro I'm down to four packs, and I'm here in Fallujah till who knows when. Maybe they can send some. And they can bring down the price a bit."
Those are the unfettered sentiments of Marine Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, 20, a country boy from Kentucky who has been thrust unwittingly and somewhat unwillingly into the role of poster boy for a war on the other side of the world from his home on the farm.
Whatever the case, the photo seems to have struck a chord, and top Marine brass are thrilled.
Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, dropped in on Charlie Company Friday to laud the Marlboro Men.
"That's a great picture," echoed Col. Craig Tucker, who heads the regimental combat team that includes Miller's battalion. "We're having one blown up and sent over to the unit."
yeah, sounds like they were pretty pissed and he was looking at "conduct unbecoming", alright. Definitely sounds like they wanted to push a UCMJ charge
Whatever the case, the photo seems to have struck a chord, and top Marine brass are thrilled.
Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, dropped in on Charlie Company Friday to laud the Marlboro Men.
"That's a great picture," echoed Col. Craig Tucker, who heads the regimental combat team that includes Miller's battalion. "We're having one blown up and sent over to the unit."
yeah, sounds like they were pretty pissed and he was looking at "conduct unbecoming", alright. Definitely sounds like they wanted to push a UCMJ charge
Did I not mention something about those in the US and those in the combat theater were of two different opinion. Oh wait....I did
I bow your vast experience and knowledge on this subject.
Are you going to support your claim with anything other than an appeal to authority fallacy?
Yes, you have more experience being in the military than I do, but even as a layperson I'm pretty sure you don't get hauled up on UCMJ conduct unbecoming charges for the crime of "smoking on camera".
Ouze wrote: Are you going to support your claim with anything other than an appeal to authority fallacy?
Yes, you have more experience being in the military than I do, but even as a layperson I'm pretty sure you don't get hauled up on UCMJ conduct unbecoming charges for the crime of "smoking on camera".
well it depends on what he was smoking doesn't it.
You weren't there Ouze, you just don't know. How dare you expect people to back up what amounts to office gossip about pissed off management when they claim it as fact on the Internet.
Prestor Jon wrote: Scout Snipers had been using that SS logo for a long time. Nobody in the chain of command had any issue with it until that pic got loose on the internet and people decided to complain about on social media.
Yeah, the problem wasn't with our armed forces deployed overseas displaying Nazi iconography, it was with the SJWs who complained about it.
You can only read gak like this and laugh
Marine Scout Snipers have used that flag for decades without any previous issues before that picture incited internet outrage. The double S logo is easier to put on a flag than a hog's tooth. A lightning bolt shaped S is nothing new and can be seen in the logo for the band KISS and on Tolkien's original maps for The Hobbit. Only someone who is literally blind or willfully ignores context could conflate the Marines in that photo with the Waffen SS. Symbols don't exist in vacuums, context is everything and that photo is clearly US Marines, in uniform, in Afhanistan, standing next to an American flag. Nobody looks at the KISS logo and thinks that the band with multiple Jewish musicians in it are a bunch of Nazis, even though there' s the double lightning bolt S, because context is everything.
That there's simply nothing wrong with taking a logo from something when the new re-purposed form has no connection to the old usage, especially when the logo is textual and not graphical. What are you going to have an issue with next? Unit shirts? How about airwing patches? Should we get rid of battle guidons while we're at it! I mean, Old Glory and the EGA is all any unit should need, it's not fair that Victor units should have streamers units like CLB 4,569 could never get.
Various LAR groups have been using the repurposed DAK insignia since the Gulf War. Obviously the Marines in that pic are also Nazis, right?
Here's another one:
Not only does that unit patch include a totenkopf, but it also features the logo of a fictiticious terrorist organization. Clearly everyone in that unit must be terrorist Nazis that need to be drummed out of the service for being dangerously evil.
Here's two more unit patches with a variation of the totenkopf:
I guess we need to get rid of everyone in those units too.
And everyone in the 6th Division must be a racist given their preference fo the Indian head logo (maybe they're just all big Blackhawks fans).
Do you understand that when I said they were using Nazi iconography, I wasn't calling them Nazis? I mean, I know it feels good whaling away on a strawman, but come now.
It's kind of ironic you said "context is everything" and glossed over that the band KISS uses them, without mentioning it's in part of a larger word, and that Tolkein used them, without mentioning that he used the rest of the symbols from that alphabet as well.
Obviously, you know all these things already and are just pretending you don't, but I thought I'd mention it for any other readers that don't feel like doing a quick google search.
So far as "other iconography we shouldn't have our tax-payed-funded troops display while overseas", lets start with removing the ones that are most strongly associated with the people responsible for the holocaust, and go from there. Crazy talk!
I don't think we even need to get into the idea you're fumbling for that every skull is a totenkopf
even for the Dakka OT, these ideas are just pure lol
To pretend that any random skull is automatically a SS Totenkopf (in style or in meaning) and then act like anyone complaining about Scout Snipers using the exact same SS runes that the Nazis used should is a hypocrite if they are okay with anyone using a random skull of the logo of a cartoon nemesis is about as textbook as you can get when defining "strawman arguments". Lego should charge you for wasting Dakka bandwidth with that post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: the 45th Infantry division has an interesting example since we are on the topic of divisional insignias in our military:
Ouze wrote: Do you understand that when I said they were using Nazi iconography, I wasn't calling them Nazis? I mean, I know it feels good whaling away on a strawman, but come now.
It's kind of ironic you said "context is everything" and glossed over that the band KISS uses them, without mentioning it's in part of a larger word, and that Tolkein used them, without mentioning that he used the rest of the symbols from that alphabet as well.
Obviously, you know all these things already and are just pretending you don't, but I thought I'd mention it for any other readers that don't feel like doing a quick google search.
So far as "other iconography we shouldn't have our tax-payed-funded troops display while overseas", lets start with removing the ones that are most strongly associated with the people responsible for the holocaust, and go from there. Crazy talk!
I don't think we even need to get into the idea you're fumbling for that every skull is a totenkopf
even for the Dakka OT, these ideas are just pure lol
So your argument is that I was somehow being deceitful when I wrote it "can be seen in the logo for the band KISS" without explaining that the logo for the band KISS is the word KISS? I didn't think I needed to considering there is a previous post in this thread, on the same page as my post that shows a large picture of the band's logo. Nobody would have to use google to search for the KISS logo, CaptJake posted it a few posts above mine on the same page, people would only be confused if they read my post without reading the preceding posts on the same page of the thread.
I thought the Tolkien example was also self explanatory, runes/symbols can be used in different contexts and gain different meanings due to different context. The lightning S rune wasn't invented by the Nazis, it wasn't used solely by the Nazis and it isn't inherently a Nazi symbol.
This is a picture of US Marines, they are dressed like Marines and are standing next to flags with decades of association with US Marines. The context of this photo makes it clear that these are Marines.
When I see the above photo it doesn't make me equate US Marines with these guys. They are clearly different. The inclusion of the SS runes in both pictures doesn't create any confusion in my mind that the pictures show two categorically different groups of men.
The Marine Scout Snipers are not the Waffen SS, they don't behave like them, dress like them, and have no association with them. If you swap out that SS flag for any other flag the character and conduct of the Marines around it does not change. The Scout Snipers have done nothing wrong, they've merely chosen a symbol that you disapprove of but has been utilitized by their unit without issue for decades. You are arguing that punitive action should be taken against them for the sole transgression of violating your personal arbitrary notion of proper decorum. That's absurd.
The skull to the right of the Cobra logo is a totenkopf:
A skull-and-crossed bones symbol is centuries older than Nazi Germany. After all, even pirates in the fifteenth-through-seventeenth centuries flew them on flags.
The "lightning" SS is, also, centuries (millennia, actually) older than Nazi iconography, being Nordic runes.... representing, fittingly enough, lightning bolts.
I think you might need to download more RAM for your video card if that skull looks just like the SS Totenkopf on your screen...
The Marine Scout Snipers are not the Waffen SS, they don't behave like them, dress like them, and have no association with them. If you swap out that SS flag for any other flag the character and conduct of the Marines around it does not change. The Scout Snipers have done nothing wrong, they've merely chosen a symbol that you disapprove of but has been utilitized by their unit without issue for decades.
The 45th Infantry Division were not a Nazi Unit. They did not behave like them, dress like them, and had no association with them. When they swapped out the swastika on their unit insignia for another symbol the character and conduct of the soldiers wearing it did not change. The 45th Infantry Division did nothing wrong, they have merely chosen a symbol that some disapproved of but that has been utilized by the division without issue for decades.
You are arguing that punitive action should be taken against them for the sole transgression of violating your personal arbitrary notion of proper decorum. That's absurd
Is he arguing that every single scout sniper that has ever posed or used the rune SS should be punished, or is he arguing that in an age where everything that they do is shared with the public they might reconsider the use of stupid and questionable symbols?
Maybe you are seeing things that are not there, like all skulls suddenly becoming Nazi Totenkopf symbols, and maybe there comes a time where military leadership needs to step up and say "listen guys, I know we never really cared if you flew that stupid SS flag in the desert while killing Taliban and nobody knew what was going on. But if you guys are going to keep on posing with the stupid flag and carving SS runes into your rifles and then posting that gak on Facebook then we are going to put an end to the stupid SS runes everywhere", but arguing that using the exact same style of SS as the Nazis while at the same time not playing guitar or cosplaying as an elf is exactly like using the Cobra symbol on a unit patch is just plain silly.
They weren't there Prestor Jon, they just don't know. How dare you expect people to back up what amounts to lack of experience/knowledge about service members Dark Humor when stuff is posted on the Internet. We Service Members should be ashamed...............not
Though that Afrika Corp pic was nicely done.
Though we had the German Battle Group go nuts on us
Darkside Group in Kandahar were not going to let the Germans up stage them
If it were a group just throwing up an SS banner for the lulz, I could maybe see the outrage.
Since it is a group called the Scout Snipers, and those are literally just the initials of their group rendered in a specific font; I would look at their behaviors and attitudes. Are they renowned for white supremacist attitudes? Do they seem to revere the tenets of the Third Reich? No, not really. So maybe let this one go.
I don't think letting internet outrage dictate policy is a winning long term strategy for any group. People need to chill out.
I think most of us understand, even though we weren't here. "Battle humor, herp derp" isn't exactly a complicated concept and nobody here thinks that sniper scouts are some sort of secret unit trying to further the cause of zombie-Hitler or anything like that.
What some people don't seem to realize is that there is "battle humor" and "gak that looks offensive when viewed by people who are not parading through a war zone".
My line of work is filled with offensive humor to deal with crap, same as cops, firemen, soldiers, etc. Most of us realize that the gak we say is funny as hell to us and builds comradery and we know that if just a tiny part of what we joke about gets out we will be in deep gak because it is offensive as hell.
No better summation of how we were raised with the Rebel flag.
When I was a kid and didn't know any better, I looked at that flag and all I saw was rebellion, which is something a teenager likes. The reason we didn't know any better is because we weren't taught any better. We were taught wrong. We were taught a myth.
You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.
Oh, wait. You thought I was referring to the Confederate flag. Actually, I’m talking about the POW/MIA flag.
I suspect this guy is not going to be popular at the next Rolling Thunder event...
While I'm all to happy to sit here and poke holes in the self-righteous indignation of Vietnam vets, I'm not really sure how that flag is racist. I suppose the author makes the argument that the flag is a lie... But racist?
He doesn't mention any reason why it's a racist symbol.
Obviously he wants to take a crack at the right-wing provenance of the whole thing, but that is a matter of propaganda, nothing to do with racism as far I can tell.
He declared their treatment, and the enemy’s refusal to provide a list of their names, violations of the Geneva Conventions—the better to paint the North Vietnamese as uniquely cruel and inhumane
I guess this is the closest he gets to explaining the racism angle. It's a pretty weak argument, especially when taken into consideration with all the other persuasive arguments he puts forward.
That seems to me to be entirely political propaganda, unless people are going to believe that South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese are separate races. People would have to be pretty stupid to accept that argument.
The reality of course is that both countries contained a number of ethnic groups.
I suspect the reality is Flag of Racist Hate as a title sells, and the folks he writes to are likely convinced or at least prone to believe anyone with conservative tendencies, especially those with ties to the military, are racist scum.
LordofHats wrote: While I'm all to happy to sit here and poke holes in the self-righteous indignation of Vietnam vets, I'm not really sure how that flag is racist. I suppose the author makes the argument that the flag is a lie... But racist?
Yeah, they made a great for how it's sort of dishonest but at no point did they seem to actually make a case for, let alone prove, how it's racist despite their headline.
All in all an odd article. I'd say poor editing if it weren't likely clickbaity nonsense.
"All the stations up here don't sign off with Dixie
The way they did in sweet home Alabama
The people here don't sip Jack Daniels whiskey
The way they do in that Tennessee mountain land
I've always heard lots about the big apple
So I thought I'd come up here and see
But all I've seen so far is one big hassle
Wish I was camped out on the Okeechobee
If this is the promised land, I've had all I can stand
And I'm headed back below that Dixie line
Well I just don't fit in and I'll never come back again
I'm busted here with Dixie on my mind
Oh, I'm stuck up here and I got Dixie on my mind
These people never smile or say a word
They're all too busy tryin' to make an extra dime
Oh, I'd love to haul 'em all down around Spartanburg
And show 'em how to raise hell in Carolina
Oh, the things you know that I miss most of all
Is the freedom of the rivers and the pines
They don't do much huntin' and fishin' up here, ya know
But I have met a few squirrels and one porcupine
If this is the promised land, I've had all I can stand
Wish I was down in Houston town tonight
Well I just don't fit in and I'll never come back again
I'm busted here with Dixie on my mind
Oh, I'm stuck up here and I got Dixie on my mind"
Read more: Hank Williams Jr. - Dixie On My Mind Lyrics | MetroLyrics
You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.
Oh, wait. You thought I was referring to the Confederate flag. Actually, I’m talking about the POW/MIA flag.
I suspect this guy is not going to be popular at the next Rolling Thunder event...
I'm going to go cleanse my brain now bleach. I've no idea what the Hell I read. Sounds like his brain left the reservation on that article. Second time on the apology. Special snowflake there with the tin foil hat WTF?!?1
But Yellow Rose of Texas is a-ok! As long as they leave out the last verse...
And now I'm going southward, for my heart is full of woe,
I'm going back to Georgia, to find my Uncle Joe,
You may talk about your Beauregard, and sing of General Lee,
But the gallant Hood of Texas played hell in Tennessee.
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (AP) - Officials at the Grand Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center have called for the removal of the Confederate flag from a mural inside the facility's cafeteria.
The Daily Sentinel reports that the two-year-old mural is a depiction of American military history, featuring the American Revolution to the war in Iraq.
Medical center spokesman Paul Sweeney says the upper reaches of the Department of Veterans Affairs have asked that the Confederate flag shown behind an image of a Union soldier and a Confederate rebel be removed.
A banner will hide the Confederate flag until the artist of the mural is able to remove it.
The 72-year-old artist, Lee Bowerman, says he reluctantly agreed to get rid of the image.
I have to ask, since this whole thing seems to have been initiated by the church shootings, if team jackets and red and blue headbands or shirts will be next on the block because of all the people who have been killed for wearing them.
A banner will hide the Confederate flag until the artist of the mural is able to remove it.
Pretty dumb. My stance always has been that no government facility should fly the traitor flag in a place of honor; i.e. over a statehouse or another government building. However when it's part of a larger historical context I think it's appropriate, it's part of our history and we shouldn't whitewash our history.
I think this falls pretty strongly into the latter camp; not all civil war imagery is reflexively offensive. Some of this movement has been incredibly inane, like wanting to move confederate dead. Actually that last bit falls into shameful, and passes inane.
You are right... it is lame for people to want a CONFEDERATE Memorial day when we already have a memorial day which technically covers all civil war vets, north and south. To need or even want to explicitly have a day for CONFEDERATE memorial when we have no such day for virtually all the other wars shows a delusional stance and suspect to ulterior motives and meanings.
That holiday *SHOULD* be removed.
Robert E. Lee was a respectable guy as well, and he explicitly was against the confederate flag post-war. He wanted to come together, not isolate and celebrate 'the south' at the end of the war. Again... cool guy, did his job, we took his entire plantation and buried dead people on it but a state holiday serves no purpose and is a rallying cry for bigots in an age where it is simply unneeded.
A banner will hide the Confederate flag until the artist of the mural is able to remove it.
Pretty dumb. My stance always has been that no government facility should fly the traitor flag in a place of honor; i.e. over a statehouse or another government building. However when it's part of a larger historical context I think it's appropriate, it's part of our history and we shouldn't whitewash our history.
I think this falls pretty strongly into the latter camp; not all civil war imagery is reflexively offensive. Some of this movement has been incredibly inane, like wanting to move confederate dead. Actually that last bit falls into shameful, and passes inane.
MWHistorian wrote: The Confederacy was all evil monsters? Oh, how the victors love to write the history.
Except any historian will tell you that the South definitely won the narrative. As a Southern with Confederate branches in my family tree, I can attest to it.
.jpg/300px-Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_(destruction,_1931).jpg)
.svg/2000px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_(1861-1863).svg.png)
off and die.
since the Gulf War. Obviously the Marines in that pic are also Nazis, right?
