Charlottesville (VA) 'Unite the Right' rally

[98valk]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about seceding?

[scooperhsd]

I DO NOT see the point in removing the Confederate statues - they are representing history.  As long as they are not being celebrated for being racists, but rather as brave men and women. The Civil War was more about economics, not race  / slavery so much. I'm not necessarily saying the people being honored with the statues  were right - only that they were major figures in an important event.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about succeeding?

All states talk about succeeding. A couple even talk about seceding.

[98valk]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about succeeding?

All states talk about succeeding. A couple even talk about seceding.

fixed, thanks

[Serk]

All states talk about succeeding. A couple even talk about seceding.

Some are working towards succeeding at seceding...

[Rams]

She was walking down the street shoShe did nothing wrong. You can try to spin it however you want.

Obviously, you have access to some inside knowledge the rest of us don't.

I'm not suggesting she did anything but , I couldn't swear she's an innocent victim either.   Or, is your statement an assumption?

I personally don't believe anyone there wasn't there to make their presence known one way or another.

[scooperhsd]

yeah - Splitting California into 2 states (Jefferson and "California") as one example. I do not know the state politics involved well enough to have an opinion. Except that some people feel it is necessary.

Letting Puerto Rico join as the 51st state - the last couple elections they've had on the subject, it passed (overwhelmingly, I think). Yes, there will be some issues with this.

This demonstrations about Charlottesville is making me wonder if we are falling apart as a country .

I'm all for people PEACEFULLY protesting - this violence is really unnecessary.

[The emperor has no clothes]

She was walking down the street shoShe did nothing wrong. You can try to spin it however you want.

Obviously, you have access to some inside knowledge the rest of us don't.

I'm not suggesting she did anything but , I couldn't swear she's an innocent victim either.   Or, is your statement an assumption?

I personally don't believe anyone there wasn't there to make their presence known one way or another.

Ron, I have no knowledge of it other than what I've been able to gather from the news. Are you saying that she was wrong to "make her presence known" of her opposition to neo-nazis ? I see NOTHING wrong in peaceful protest of opposition to hate.

[Rams]

She was walking down the street shoShe did nothing wrong. You can try to spin it however you want.

Obviously, you have access to some inside knowledge the rest of us don't.

I'm not suggesting she did anything but , I couldn't swear she's an innocent victim either.   Or, is your statement an assumption?

I personally don't believe anyone there wasn't there to make their presence known one way or another.

Ron, I have no knowledge of it other than what I've been able to gather from the news. Are you saying that she was wrong to "make her presence known" of her opposition to neo-nazis ? I see NOTHING wrong in peaceful protest of opposition to hate.

Nope, all I'm suggesting is that you jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge and an obvious bias.

[Serk]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

[The emperor has no clothes]

She was walking down the street shoShe did nothing wrong. You can try to spin it however you want.

Obviously, you have access to some inside knowledge the rest of us don't.

I'm not suggesting she did anything but , I couldn't swear she's an innocent victim either.   Or, is your statement an assumption?

I personally don't believe anyone there wasn't there to make their presence known one way or another.

Ron, I have no knowledge of it other than what I've been able to gather from the news. Are you saying that she was wrong to "make her presence known" of her opposition to neo-nazis ? I see NOTHING wrong in peaceful protest of opposition to hate.

Nope, all I'm suggesting is that you jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge and an obvious bias.

Well, your suggestion would be wrong then.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her. 

[Rams]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her.  

I couldn't make such a call, too many different factions and organizations present for me to suggest anything.   But, I do assume many were there looking for news media coverage.   I don't assume anyone innocent that goes to such an event where there are obvious opportunities for conflict.   So...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her.  

I couldn't make such a call, too many different factions and organizations present for me to suggest anything.   But, I do assume many were there looking for news media coverage.   I don't assume anyone innocent that goes to such an event where there are obvious opportunities for conflict.   So...

Well then. Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  If an organization of Child molesters came to your town and decided to have a rally about the virtues of having sexual relations with children. Would it be wrong of you to go down there and show your displeasure with their position ? And yes, it's an extreme, unlikely example. I am pretty sure if neo-nazis came here for a rally to espouse their bullshit, I would be down there voicing my displeasure with them. It would have nothing to do with media coverage. Standing up for what is right was admirable of her in my opinion.

[Rams]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her.  

I couldn't make such a call, too many different factions and organizations present for me to suggest anything.   But, I do assume many were there looking for news media coverage.   I don't assume anyone innocent that goes to such an event where there are obvious opportunities for conflict.   So...

Well then. Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  If an organization of Child molesters came to your town and decided to have a rally about the virtues of having sexual relations with children. Would it be wrong of you to go down there and show your displeasure with their position ? And yes, it's an extreme, unlikely example. I am pretty sure if neo-nazis came here for a rally to espouse their bullshit, I would be down there voicing my displeasure with them. It would have nothing to do with media coverage. Standing up for what is right was admirable of her in my opinion.

Just how many Nazis were there?   
You seem to accept an obviously bias' media.  I don't, I'll save my conclusions for after the investigation.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her.  

I couldn't make such a call, too many different factions and organizations present for me to suggest anything.   But, I do assume many were there looking for news media coverage.   I don't assume anyone innocent that goes to such an event where there are obvious opportunities for conflict.   So...

Well then. Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  If an organization of Child molesters came to your town and decided to have a rally about the virtues of having sexual relations with children. Would it be wrong of you to go down there and show your displeasure with their position ? And yes, it's an extreme, unlikely example. I am pretty sure if neo-nazis came here for a rally to espouse their bullshit, I would be down there voicing my displeasure with them. It would have nothing to do with media coverage. Standing up for what is right was admirable of her in my opinion.

Just how many Nazis were there?   
You seem to accept an obviously bias' media.  I don't, I'll save my conclusions for after the investigation.

This was police estimate. No media bias.

Police affidavit on tomorrow's "Unite the Right" attendees:
• 150+ Alt Knights
• 250-500 Klu Klux Klan
• 500 "3% Risen"
• 200-300 Militia

[Jess from VA]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her.  

Actually, there should be no controversy in defending anyone peacefully and lawfully protesting ANYTHING.  That is what our 1st Amd means.  You can love or hate or be indifferent to whatever the protest is about, but that should not change your support for (or interpretation of) the Constitution.  

However, if you (personally) peacefully assemble/associate/agree/walk with with a group that has a large number of violent/unlawful participants, you are tacitly supporting that violence (and putting yourself at risk for getting sucked into that violence).  There is some guilt by association.  I suppose complete ignorance of the violent tendencies of your group may be a defense, but at first sign of violence, immediate exit would be the proper action, not a knowing, continuing participation as a passive supporter of the violence (no matter what the cause is).

I have not watched extensive coverage, but what I've seen showed the antifa initiating all violence.

Certainly her death and any other injuries were unfortunate.  

I have some experience with this.  Some years ago, I attended a march in Detroit that was completely peaceful for a long time, until two guys decided to rob a closed jewelry store with a brick through the window, and a line of 40 mounted (horse) policeman charged the march right where I was, swinging billy clubs.  I wanted to immediately leave, but nobody was running as fast as I was, and I was run over and stepped on by a horse.  The two guys were not part of the march, they just used us for cover.  The horse didn't care.  I thought my cause was just, but I also thought I was partly to blame for my own injury by being there.  Assumption of risk.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just curious... if the perp had been one of the Antifa/BLM types and the victim was just some random person who was peacefully protesting the wiping of their heritage, would you be as quick to defend them as a peaceful protester?

I would hope so. I'm not really seeing the controversy in defending someone peacefully showing their displeasure with the neo-nazis ? It seems many here WANT her to be some violent liberal that got what was coming to her.  

Actually, there should be no controversy in defending anyone peacefully and lawfully protesting ANYTHING.  That is what our 1st Amd means.  You can love or hate or be indifferent to whatever the protest is about, but that should not change your support for (or interpretation of) the Constitution.  

However, if you (personally) peacefully assemble/associate/agree/walk with with a group that has a large number of violent/unlawful participants, you are tacitly supporting that violence (and putting yourself at risk for getting sucked into that violence).  There is some guilt by association.  I suppose complete ignorance of the violent tendencies of your group may be a defense, but at first sign of violence, immediate exit would be the proper action, not a knowing, continuing participation as a passive supporter of the violence (no matter what the cause is).

I have not watched extensive coverage, but what I've seen showed the antifa initiating all violence.

Certainly her death and any other injuries were unfortunate.  

I have some experience with this.  Some years ago, I attended a march in Detroit that was completely peaceful for a long time, until two guys decided to rob a closed jewelry store with a brick through the window, and a line of 40 mounted (horse) policeman charged the march right where I was, swinging billy clubs.  I wanted to immediately leave, but nobody was running as fast as I was, and I was run over and stepped on by a horse.  The two guys were not part of the march, they just used us for cover.  The horse didn't care.  I thought my cause was just, but I also thought I was partly to blame for my own injury by being there.  Assumption of risk.

I understand what you are saying. But all the video from private citizens, and video from police drones that I have seen show no violence with this crowd that was walking down that street. It also shows the driver was not surrounded by a crowd as some are suggesting. He had approximately 100 yds. of clear road before he started hitting people and vehicles.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

A few observations.

I think the "great divider" who spent 8 years using the White House to bring back racism is probably smiling about this.

The left's Orwellian urge to rewrite history by destroying it would be something to laugh about if they weren't so successful in their endeavors. As it is, the growth and acceptance of the irrational as the norm is incredibly disturbing and seems to be somehow contagious.

I would just as soon the racists on all sides go somewhere away from the media and the sane citizens and fight until a state of mutual annihilation has been reached. Otherwise they will just keep influencing the weak minded. Of course, this won't happen and the resurgent racism our last president invoked in his pursuit of power is probably going to be poisoning our society and endangering our citizens for quite a while yet.

It may take a world war to bring us back together as a people but I pray that's not the case.

[old2soon]

Mayhaps the big spender-soros-funded the bull kaka that happened? RIDE SAFE.

[baldo]

Mayhaps the big spender-soros-funded the bull kaka that happened? RIDE SAFE.

Yeah, maybe.....

[baldo]

A few observations.

I think the "great divider" who spent 8 years using the White House to bring back racism is probably smiling about this.

The left's Orwellian urge to rewrite history by destroying it would be something to laugh about if they weren't so successful in their endeavors. As it is, the growth and acceptance of the irrational as the norm is incredibly disturbing and seems to be somehow contagious.

I would just as soon the racists on all sides go somewhere away from the media and the sane citizens and fight until a state of mutual annihilation has been reached. Otherwise they will just keep influencing the weak minded. Of course, this won't happen and the resurgent racism our last president invoked in his pursuit of power is probably going to be poisoning our society and endangering our citizens for quite a while yet.

It may take a world war to bring us back together as a people but I pray that's not the case.

LOLOL.....there it is again. The All Powerful, EVIL Obama, race baiting the masses so that blood will run in the streets. I really can't believe you guys....

And if the trumpster keeps on with his mad midnight tweeting, you just might get that world war.

[hubcapsc]

The peaceful protesters in Durham have torn down that town's
Confederate Soldier monument. They'll be after me soon, but
it is OK, I have a small Confederate flag on my front fender.

-Mike "open season"

[Robert]

According to its most recent 990 tax form, Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) received $2.2 million in funding for the fiscal year ending in March 2016.

One of the group’s biggest donors is the Tides Foundation, a non-profit funded by billionaire progressive philanthropist George Soros. Tides gave AfGJ $50,000.

The United Steel Workers labor union also contributed $5,000. The city of Tucson is also listed in AfGJ’s 990 as a donor, but a city official says that the city acted merely as a pass-through for a Native American tribe that provided a grant to the activist group. The city official said that no city money went to AfGJ.
A vandalized Bank of America office is seen after a student protest turned violent at UC Berkeley during a demonstration over right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos in Berkeley (REUTERS)

A vandalized Bank of America office is seen after a student protest turned violent at UC Berkeley during a demonstration over right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos in Berkeley (REUTERS)
Charities associated with several major corporations also donated. Patagonia.org, the outdoor apparel and equipment company, gave $40,000. The Ben & Jerry Foundation, the charity associated with the ice cream maker, gave $20,000. And Lush Cosmetic gave $43,950.

Another bit of irony is seen in the $5,000 contribution from the Peace Development Fund, a group that claims to support organizations that fight for human rights and social justice.

Another major donation came from a group that was chaired by Hillary Clinton during the 1980s. The New World Foundation gave $52,000 to AfGJ.

Refuse Fascism did not respond to a request for comment for this article.


http://truthfeed.com/democrat-terrorist-group-antifa-plans-to-make-america-ungovernable/50830/
Democrat Terrorist Group “Antifa” Plans to Make America “Ungovernable”

 Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

 A website called Ungovernable 2017 helped coordinate DisruptJ20’s DC efforts with anti-Trump protests around the country. Some groups endorsed a pledge to never give Trump the “chance to govern.”

“As we resist, we will create new governing institutions, new economic relationships, and new ways of being human,” the pledge reads.

 ACLU of Virginia‏Verified account @ACLUVA
https://twitter.com/ACLUVA/status/896386562484731904
Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police says "We'll not intervene until given command to do so." #Charlottesville

[Hook#3287]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about seceding?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

The seceding states had a population of 9 million, of which 4 million were slaves.

From 1850 to 1860 the slave population increased by 700K in the US.  Importation stopped, but breeding increased the ranks.   Doesn't seem on the way out.  

The Civil War, and its causes, is a highly debated and complex subject and the view or reasons that is (was) taught in school, I believe,  depends on where the school is.  North or south of the Mason Dixon.

While I can see that many believe that it was about States Rights, the State Right that was the cause was the right to be a slave state or not.

The Feds wanted to exclude slavery from any new state, but the slave states wanted to let the people of those territories, vote their slave/free status.

I get that, democracy.  But is the vote on a morally corrupt practice really democracy?

I find it ridiculous to try and rewrite history by taking down statues.  Those men and women gave their lives for what they believed in, right or wong in our present view.  

They WERE heroes, in their time.

[hubcapsc]

They WERE heroes,

Still are...

-Mike

[Hook#3287]

They WERE heroes,

Still are...

-Mike

Correct!

[phideux]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about seceding?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

The seceding states had a population of 9 million, of which 4 million were slaves.

From 1850 to 1860 the slave population increased by 700K in the US.  Importation stopped, but breeding increased the ranks.   Doesn't seem on the way out.  

The Civil War, and its causes, is a highly debated and complex subject and the view or reasons that is (was) taught in school, I believe,  depends on where the school is.  North or south of the Mason Dixon.

While I can see that many believe that it was about States Rights, the State Right that was the cause was the right to be a slave state or not.

The Feds wanted to exclude slavery from any new state, but the slave states wanted to let the people of those territories, vote their slave/free status.

I get that, democracy.  But is the vote on a morally corrupt practice really democracy?

I find it ridiculous to try and rewrite history by taking down statues.  Those men and women gave their lives for what they believed in, right or wong in our present view.  

They WERE heroes, in their time.

At the start, and during, the Civil War. New York had slaves, so did New Jersey, so did Maryland and Delaware, so did DC. The largest port of importation of slaves into the US was in Rhode Island, the second was Baltimore, the third was New York. Missouri was the last state to give up it's slaves. Not exclusively a Southern thing.
The Southerners didn't want the Northerners telling them how to run things, we still don't. Keep your yankee crap up there.

[Robert]

One of the biggest causes of the civil war was the taxes and tariffs placed on the cotton and other goods out of the south. Now if you are forcing tariffs to be paid by the south and then want to jamb freedom for slaves, the primary labor force for the south down their throats then claim slavery was the biggest cause then I think you don't know people.  Its kind of like you can only take away from people so much till it's not worth it anymore and freedom from taxation or oppression all of a sudden sounds really really good. It has happened time and time again in US history. The north had plenty of money the south didn't so how far are you going to push people and not address their needs? I see this same principle at play today in how the government was run for 8 years, and they wonder why Trump won. A good article that explains this below.


Protective tariffs: Primary cause of the Civil War
http://www.dailyprogress.com/opinion/guest_columnists/protective-tariffs-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/article_63b77f5c-dc0c-11e2-8e99-001a4bcf6878.html

Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act. For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.

In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry’s consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry’s producers who benefit in profits.

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track were laid. At their best, these tracks benefited the North. Many rail lines had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90 percent of the federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.

Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.

Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. The statement was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It might have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

[Hook#3287]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about seceding?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

The seceding states had a population of 9 million, of which 4 million were slaves.

From 1850 to 1860 the slave population increased by 700K in the US.  Importation stopped, but breeding increased the ranks.   Doesn't seem on the way out.  

The Civil War, and its causes, is a highly debated and complex subject and the view or reasons that is (was) taught in school, I believe,  depends on where the school is.  North or south of the Mason Dixon.

While I can see that many believe that it was about States Rights, the State Right that was the cause was the right to be a slave state or not.

The Feds wanted to exclude slavery from any new state, but the slave states wanted to let the people of those territories, vote their slave/free status.

I get that, democracy.  But is the vote on a morally corrupt practice really democracy?

I find it ridiculous to try and rewrite history by taking down statues.  Those men and women gave their lives for what they believed in, right or wong in our present view.  

They WERE heroes, in their time.

At the start, and during, the Civil War. New York had slaves, so did New Jersey, so did Maryland and Delaware, so did DC. The largest port of importation of slaves into the US was in Rhode Island, the second was Baltimore, the third was New York. Missouri was the last state to give up it's slaves. Not exclusively a Southern thing.
The Southerners didn't want the Northerners telling them how to run things, we still don't. Keep your yankee crap up there.

. Ouch!  My yankee crap?  Where in my post am I telling you, or anyone else, how to run anything?

[98valk]

I see somebody found aldo. Please lose him again. Thanks

[Hook#3287]

Robert, thanks for that info, very impressive.

It's not a view I've had much experience with, yet.

As I said, the causes of the Civil War are very complex.

98, I'm not sure who aldo is?

I'll make every attempt to keep my "Yankee Crap" up here

I DO NOT believe in taking down monuments, nor running my car into protestors.

[98valk]

Robert, thanks for that info, very impressive.

It's not a view I've had much experience with, yet.

As I said, the causes of the Civil War are very complex.

98, I'm not sure who aldo is?

I'll make every attempt to keep my "Yankee Crap" up here

I DO NOT believe in taking down monuments, nor running my car into protestors.

"baldo"

[Hook#3287]

Robert, thanks for that info, very impressive.

It's not a view I've had much experience with, yet.

As I said, the causes of the Civil War are very complex.

98, I'm not sure who aldo is?

I'll make every attempt to keep my "Yankee Crap" up here

I DO NOT believe in taking down monuments, nor running my car into protestors.

"baldo"

Who Bob?  While I might not agree with his political views, and most I don't, I've had the privilege of meeting him in person and sharing some wind with him.

He's a good person and I'd ride with him again anytime.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about seceding?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

The seceding states had a population of 9 million, of which 4 million were slaves.

From 1850 to 1860 the slave population increased by 700K in the US.  Importation stopped, but breeding increased the ranks.   Doesn't seem on the way out.  

The Civil War, and its causes, is a highly debated and complex subject and the view or reasons that is (was) taught in school, I believe,  depends on where the school is.  North or south of the Mason Dixon.

While I can see that many believe that it was about States Rights, the State Right that was the cause was the right to be a slave state or not.

The Feds wanted to exclude slavery from any new state, but the slave states wanted to let the people of those territories, vote their slave/free status.

I get that, democracy.  But is the vote on a morally corrupt practice really democracy?

I find it ridiculous to try and rewrite history by taking down statues.  Those men and women gave their lives for what they believed in, right or wong in our present view.  

They WERE heroes, in their time.

Hey Bill, a well thought out synopsis of the situation. I agree wholeheartedly . I would add one thing. The removing of Confederate statues and symbols is being done on government (public) spaces. As a public space it belongs to all of us. I can see how it would be highly offensive to a descendant of a slave. They are a symbol of a regime that wanted to continue the enslavement. I thought the Charlottesville government came up with a good compromise in voting to move the statue to private property. But it has went to the courts.
 As to some others opinion about Baldo. I agree with Bob a lot of the time politically. He may be more " in your face" with his opinions than me. But that doesn't make him wrong. That just makes him in the minority here. MANY here are much more in your face than Bob has ever thought about. Thanks for your opinions on the matter. I know you don't usually get dragged into this political stuff, I hope I didn't drag you in more.   I hope we get to ride together again soon. 

[hubcapsc]

They are a symbol of a regime that wanted to continue the enslavement.

The alternative was what happened in Haiti or during Reconstruction. The
Southerners nipped Reconstruction in the bud in 1877, Haiti hasn't changed
much...

You'd do anything to keep from living in Haiti in 1860, even if you don't
know it.

The past hasn't changed any recently, I don't know why we're talking about
the past instead of the mobs rioting in our cities. There's a whole bunch
of people in favor of some of the mobs...

-Mike "a pox on them all..."

[dinosnake]

They WERE heroes,

Still are...

-Mike

NO.  AND I'M GOING TO FLATLY PUT IT OUT THERE - NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Civil War was a rebellion and the Southern slave system LOST.  And, not only did it LOSE it was COMPLETELY DELEGITIMATIZED by BOTH laws AND public values for the past 150 years afterwards.

PERIOD.

They LOST.  And everything they stood for was revoked.

Unless you expect Japan to put up grand statues for the Mejii Restoration and the invasion of Manchuria; unless you expect Germany to put up THOUSANDS of statues and honorifics about the fact that they, at one point, controlled pretty much all of Europe, et al...

GET OVER IT.

Your excuses that the Confederacy's legacy is about remembering "state's rights" are just that - excuses.  

YES, the Civil War *was* about state's rights...the right to keep a social system that, fundamentally, functioned only because its economy was dependent upon the slavery system.  From the tax complaints, to the questions regarding Western expansion and the new state's free-or-slave entry into the Union (excellent essay at http://vc.airvectors.net/twcw.html), the questions were always steeped in the question: Would our classic agrarian way of life, with the necessities required of it such as low-cost labor, be impinged??  Every social & political topic that the South engaged in had that one focus in mind - to protect their own interests, even it said interests subjugated an entire race.

Now, this is typical of human beings - It's All About Me.  Everyone does this, it is biological programming.  But the world was moving past slavery as a whole and the Southerners chose to vehemently grip to the status-quo (as they often have - exactly how many decades did they hold on to Jim Crow and what force necessary to even break that?), leading to the usual butting of heads.

I'm sorry if you think that holding on to a FAILED POLITICAL SYSTEM makes some conservatives feel some form of ill-directed honor.  For all the conservative's rantings about "patriotism" in today's society it is ironic that so many of them hold on to honoring TRAITORS, who rebelled against the legitimately-elected government of the United States, in an attempt to form their own country.

The war is over.  They LOST.  And their cause has been torn to shreds for the past 150 years.  

Time to move the hell on.

[Daddie O]

Robert E. Lee was a domestic terrorist.  He renounced his citizenship, and engaged in open rebellion.  His statues if allowed to exist should be the size of fire hydrants and used by dogs for the same purpose.  He did not look at his fellow man as an equal if that man had more melanin in his skin, and felt that slave owners were doing slaves a favor by enslaving them as opposed to letting them live their lives with their families in Africa.  General Lee was not an American hero that should be memorialized with statues that attempt to glorify his actions.  He fought against and killed Americans trying to defend our country.  He was a traitor, and he lost.

We fought a war against the Nazis and defeated them.  It is part of our history.  We are not erecting statues of Hitler to commemorate it.

We fought a war against the Confederacy and defeated them.  It is part of our history.  We should not erect statues of their leaders to commemorate it.  Replace any statue of General Lee with General Grant.  General Grant was a hero and a president, not a traitor that lost the war against America.

White supremacists that march with Nazi flags and Confederate flags are not hiding the fact that they feel they are a "superior race".  If you defend them and their actions, you are one of them.  Any attempt to equate those who march to espouse the "SUPERIORITY" of their race, to those who march to say we are all EQUAL is a false equivalency.  Of course ALL lives matter, but when Black Lives Matter groups get together or march it is to bring attention to the fact that they have been living an existence where their lives have not been valued as EQUALS.  Marching for EQUALITY is not the same as marching for SUPERIORITY.

If you think white men are superior, you might be a racist.

If you hold dear the battle flag of a traitor which is used as a symbol of white supremacy, you might be a racist.

If you feel an attachment to a statue that glorifies the actions of a traitorous racist, you might be a racist.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wasn't this started over the removal of the General Lee statue in Va?

From what I've read yes it was because of the removal of the statue. The state gov. are responsible for this an now they said they will be removing more. It just never stops.

love how they re-write history to make the CW about slavery. it never was, it was about states rights. slavery was actually on the way out, only a few states were still doing it.  how many states today have talked about seceding?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."

The seceding states had a population of 9 million, of which 4 million were slaves.

From 1850 to 1860 the slave population increased by 700K in the US.  Importation stopped, but breeding increased the ranks.   Doesn't seem on the way out.  

The Civil War, and its causes, is a highly debated and complex subject and the view or reasons that is (was) taught in school, I believe,  depends on where the school is.  North or south of the Mason Dixon.

While I can see that many believe that it was about States Rights, the State Right that was the cause was the right to be a slave state or not.

The Feds wanted to exclude slavery from any new state, but the slave states wanted to let the people of those territories, vote their slave/free status.

I get that, democracy.  But is the vote on a morally corrupt practice really democracy?

I find it ridiculous to try and rewrite history by taking down statues.  Those men and women gave their lives for what they believed in, right or wong in our present view.  

They WERE heroes, in their time.

At the start, and during, the Civil War. New York had slaves, so did New Jersey, so did Maryland and Delaware, so did DC. The largest port of importation of slaves into the US was in Rhode Island, the second was Baltimore, the third was New York. Missouri was the last state to give up it's slaves. Not exclusively a Southern thing.
The Southerners didn't want the Northerners telling them how to run things, we still don't. Keep your yankee crap up there.

Fido, you've said some pretty dumbass things in the past. But this has to take the cake. "Keep your Yankee crap up there" ? 

[Reb]

Robert E. Lee was a domestic terrorist.  He renounced his citizenship, and engaged in open rebellion.  His statues if allowed to exist should be the size of fire hydrants and used by dogs for the same purpose.  He did not look at his fellow man as an equal if that man had more melanin in his skin, and felt that slave owners were doing slaves a favor by enslaving them as opposed to letting them live their lives with their families in Africa.  General Lee was not an American hero that should be memorialized with statues that attempt to glorify his actions.  He fought against and killed Americans trying to defend our country.  He was a traitor, and he lost.

We fought a war against the Nazis and defeated them.  It is part of our history.  We are not erecting statues of Hitler to commemorate it.

We fought a war against the Confederacy and defeated them.  It is part of our history.  We should not erect statues of their leaders to commemorate it.  Replace any statue of General Lee with General Grant.  General Grant was a hero and a president, not a traitor that lost the war against America.

White supremacists that march with Nazi flags and Confederate flags are not hiding the fact that they feel they are a "superior race".  If you defend them and their actions, you are one of them.  Any attempt to equate those who march to espouse the "SUPERIORITY" of their race, to those who march to say we are all EQUAL is a false equivalency.  Of course ALL lives matter, but when Black Lives Matter groups get together or march it is to bring attention to the fact that they have been living an existence where their lives have not been valued as EQUALS.  Marching for EQUALITY is not the same as marching for SUPERIORITY.

If you think white men are superior, you might be a racist.

If you hold dear the battle flag of a traitor which is used as a symbol of white supremacy, you might be a racist.

If you feel an attachment to a statue that glorifies the actions of a traitorous racist, you might be a racist.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I don't agree with the Nazi's, White Supremacists, Westboro Baptist Church, or BLM. But these words were penned by our founders.

I won't defend there rhetoric, but I will defend there rights. Does that make me a racist?