Charlottesville (VA) 'Unite the Right' rally

[3fan4life]

Truer words were never spoken.

To go on the record, I've never agreed with all the statues being torn down. I feel that it's only thrown fuel on a fire that was already lit.

If for nothing else, they should be left in place to show where we should never go again.

So then why are you supporting the people who want to tear them down?

The primary organizers of the march were just ordinary people that don't want their history destroyed.

Violence ensued when it was hijacked by militant extremists on both sides.

[baldo]

Here you go, fella. Some light reading for you. Don't say I never gave you anything.

I'm also a generous guy, and like to give back. Here, pull up a chair and prepare to be educated on reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

Thanks for the link. She's certainly well spoken. I've never heard of her before, so I read her Wiki....

She definitely works on both sides of the fence. I don't agree with some of her thoughts, others I do.

[baldo]

Truer words were never spoken.

To go on the record, I've never agreed with all the statues being torn down. I feel that it's only thrown fuel on a fire that was already lit.

If for nothing else, they should be left in place to show where we should never go again.

So then why are you supporting the people who want to tear them down?

The primary organizers of the march were just ordinary people that don't want their history destroyed.

Violence ensued when it was hijacked by militant extremists on both sides.

It's easy for you to say that "I support the people who want to tear them down"

It's not that I agree, as I've already stated. I definitely side with those against the KKK psychopathic scum.

[Valkorado]

So you side with the violent psychopathic BLM scum?  Or, like Trump, do you condemn the violence on both sides?

[Serk]

Let's see if I can build some consensus and see where our split is happening. Tell me which statement is where we diverge:

1. Some of the protesters protecting the monuments are racist KKK/Nazi scum.
2. Some of the protesters against the monuments are racist BLM/Antifa scum.
3. Some of the protesters protecting the monuments are okay people who have a non-racist legit problem with the statues coming down.
4. Some of the protesters against the monuments are okay people who have a non-racist legit desire to see the statues come down.

Still with me?

5. Saying that KKK/Nazi scum are assholes doesn't mean you have to like BLM/Antifa scum.
6. Saying that BLM/Antifa scum are assholes doesn't mean you have to like KKK/Nazi scum.

Still okay, or did I lose you there?

Here's, IMHO, where the disconnect is happening.

The spin we're being fed is that if you oppose the BLM/Antifa scum, you're automatically a KKK/Nazi scum. Anyone who dares to say "KKK/Nazis are pure scum, but these BLM/Antifa scum are also kinda scummy" somehow get labeled as KKK/Nazi sympathizers.

Just because I think one group of this silliness are lower than the pus leaking from a bloated narwhal carcass doesn't mean I like the other side at all...

Somehow those of us who are saying "YOU BOTH SUCK!" are being labeled as being in with one of the groups we just said suck.

It seems our friends in Poland are able to come together and understand this quite well, I wish we could do the same.

[Valkorado]

Let's see if I can build some consensus and see where our split is happening. Tell me which statement is where we diverge:

1. Some of the protesters protecting the monuments are racist KKK/Nazi scum.
2. Some of the protesters against the monuments are racist BLM/Antifa scum.
3. Some of the protesters protecting the monuments are okay people who have a non-racist legit problem with the statues coming down.
4. Some of the protesters against the monuments are okay people who have a non-racist legit desire to see the statues come down.

Still with me?

5. Saying that KKK/Nazi scum are assholes doesn't mean you have to like BLM/Antifa scum.
6. Saying that BLM/Antifa scum are assholes doesn't mean you have to like KKK/Nazi scum.

Still okay, or did I lose you there?

Here's, IMHO, where the disconnect is happening.

The spin we're being fed is that if you oppose the BLM/Antifa scum, you're automatically a KKK/Nazi scum. Anyone who dares to say "KKK/Nazis are pure scum, but these BLM/Antifa scum are also kinda scummy" somehow get labeled as KKK/Nazi sympathizers.

Just because I think one group of this silliness are lower than the pus leaking from a bloated narwhal carcass doesn't mean I like the other side at all...

Somehow those of us who are saying "YOU BOTH SUCK!" are being labeled as being in with one of the groups we just said suck.

It seems our friends in Poland are able to come together and understand this quite well, I wish we could do the same.

  Etch it in stone and erect it in the town square!  Second thought dont do that, some groups would want it torn down immediately.

[3fan4life]

Truer words were never spoken.

To go on the record, I've never agreed with all the statues being torn down. I feel that it's only thrown fuel on a fire that was already lit.

If for nothing else, they should be left in place to show where we should never go again.

So then why are you supporting the people who want to tear them down?

The primary organizers of the march were just ordinary people that don't want their history destroyed.

Violence ensued when it was hijacked by militant extremists on both sides.

It's easy for you to say that "I support the people who want to tear them down"

It's not that I agree, as I've already stated. I definitely side with those against the KKK psychopathic scum.

Even if they are also psychopathic scum?

[G-Man]

Oh, General Lee was fighting for The United States of America during the Civil War?  I must've learned my history wrong.  I thought he fought AGAINST The United States of America.

Robert E. Lee is by far the most respected General in US history, PERIOD!

He was asked by President Lincoln to lead the Northern Army should a war break out.

Lee responded that he would not fight against Virginia.

At the end of the war he was not ostracized or treated as a war criminal, he remained an honored and respected gentleman.

He would become the president of a college that is now Washington & Lee University;     How long do you think it will be before they are protesting the name of the school, and the name changes?

Washington and Lee was founded in 1749 as a small classical school named Augusta Academy (later Liberty Hall Academy) by Scots-Irish Presbyterian pioneers, though the University has never claimed any sectarian affiliation. In 1796, George Washington endowed the struggling academy with a gift of stock, one of the largest gifts to an educational institution at the time. In gratitude, the school was renamed for the first United States President. In 1865, after his surrender at Appomattox Court House, former General Robert E. Lee served as president of the college until his death in 1870, when the college was renamed Washington and Lee University.[5] Washington and Lee is the ninth-oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and the second-oldest in Virginia.

Anyone trying to demonize Robert E. Lee knows NOTHING about the man or the history of the civil war.

But then many people who think themselves to be intelligent open their mouths and prove themselves to be idiots!

Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying, "It is better for a man to be thought a fool. Than to open his mouth and remove all doubt".

[LTD]

very very sad

[G-Man]

This thread and so many of the posts, by people on both sides, made me sick.

The biggest issue here is the loss of our freedoms that too many are willing to simply hand over because they disagree politically with the other side.

I remember learning in school that the right to voice one's opinion, and then the back up that opinion with a vote is the most important thing we have as Americans, and that it should be protected at all costs.  Growing up in NYC during the 60's and 70's, this was pushed so hard by Liberals and Progressives as a way to have their concerns heard.  Now it's done a 180 and opposing views are met with rage.  What ever happened to "I may not agree, but I will defend your right"?

Well, today we are seeing the exact opposite.  Now, if you are disagreed with, you should be attacked, beaten, humiliated, demoralized, etc.  There is no room for a difference in opinion any more. 

[Daddie O]

Here is what many of you don't seem to get:

Nazis and white supremacists are fascists that believe that whites make up a race of superior humans.

Antifa is an anti-fascist movement and BLM is an equality movement.

If you do not see a major difference, then you aren't paying attention.  Fascism and anti-fascism are not two sides of the same coin.  White supremacy and Black equality are not two sides of the same coin.

If you want to build a shrine to hatred, or have statues and flags commemorating racist traitors, do so in your own home, not on public grounds.  The Civil War was a horrible time in our nation's history and should not be forgotten, but the racist losing side should not be glorified and commemorated especially in public places.

The confederates were not better soldiers.  Though true that they had less manpower and resources than the union, they had many advantages that were squandered.  The confederates didn't need to invade and attack the North, they simply had to defend the South which was a large geographic area. In north Virginia there is a series of rivers that provided a barrier to taking Richmond (the confederate capital).  Soldiers defending their families and homes, in an area they are familiar with, have an advantage over invaders that are fighting for the idea of a union.

What really lost the war for the South was poor military leadership and tactics.  General Lee pursued a military strategy that worked in the Mexican war, but was a flawed strategy for fighting vs the North.  The offensive-defensive strategy of holding defensive positions and then offensively attacking when conditions seemed right was a poor choice.  If they had maintained defensive positions, they would have fared much better, and possibly outlasted the North's will to fight.  Instead, Lee emphasized the offensive part of the offensive-defensive strategy, and the South literally bled itself to death in the first 3 years of the war.  Lee miscalculated against an enemy that was well led, and armed with rifles instead of much shorter range muskets.  Lee was a Virginian, and focused too much on Virginia and left the West to incompetent officers.  Also, the South was filled with deserters that just didn't have the will to fight.  

Long story short:  The South wrote a check their butt couldn't cash.

[G-Man]

What is somewhat ironic is that if one took the time to read the works of Robert E. Lee one would find he was not a racist.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge,
that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is
useless to expatiate on its disadvantages... I think it however a greater evil
to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted
in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The
blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a
race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation
may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.[/i]

Robert E. Lee, 1856

"racist" is such a loaded word...

-Mike

Sorry brother, but in MY opinion, the highlighted statement above is probably the most clearest, definitive exact example of Racism (Bigotry) I have ever read in my entire life.

That black people are better off, and may eventually become better by being hunted, chained, whipped, beaten, have children and spouses whipped, beaten, and then sold, to never earn or be allowed to own anything of value, to be kept uneducated, to be raped, and then killed when no longer of value to the owner doesn't seem like they were "better off" to me.

And then, to defend such practice as being better for the enslaved than freedom, is insanity.

 

[G-Man]

 BLM is an equality movement.

BULL$HIT

Plain and simple.

Why don't we all al least try and shoot for a little bit of truth. 

[hubcapsc]

Sorry brother, but in MY opinion, the highlighted statement above is probably the most clearest, definitive exact example of Racism (Bigotry) I have ever read in my entire life.

That's why I posted it. Robert E. Lee was a Great Man. The world is a complex place.
In his V-mail home (tiny letters on tissue paper sent home from Europe during
WWII) my daddy, who saw aerial dogfights, the ovens, and the destruction of
practically an entire continent, saw fit to say how shocked he was that they
"fed us with the niggers" in France. Wade Hampton, my hero, both redeemed
South Carolina from Reconstruction and extended more political benefits to
blacks in  South Carolina than any other governor in the post-war South.

-Mike

[3fan4life]

What is somewhat ironic is that if one took the time to read the works of Robert E. Lee one would find he was not a racist.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge,
that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is
useless to expatiate on its disadvantages... I think it however a greater evil
to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted
in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The
blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a
race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation
may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.[/i]

Robert E. Lee, 1856

"racist" is such a loaded word...

-Mike

Sorry brother, but in MY opinion, the highlighted statement above is probably the most clearest, definitive exact example of Racism (Bigotry) I have ever read in my entire life.

That black people are better off, and may eventually become better by being hunted, chained, whipped, beaten, have children and spouses whipped, beaten, and then sold, to never earn or be allowed to own anything of value, to be kept uneducated, to be raped, and then killed when no longer of value to the owner doesn't seem like they were "better off" to me.

And then, to defend such practice as being better for the enslaved than freedom, is insanity.

 

As someone here has said, you can't judge the past by the standards of today:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where
it exists. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black
races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever
forbid their living together in perfect equality, and. . .I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the
race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but
there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights in the
Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is
as much entitled to these as the White man. I agree that the Negro is not my equal in many
respects…certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to
eat the bread. . . which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of every living man.

Abraham Lincoln  August 21, 1858

[G-Man]

What is somewhat ironic is that if one took the time to read the works of Robert E. Lee one would find he was not a racist.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge,
that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is
useless to expatiate on its disadvantages... I think it however a greater evil
to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted
in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The
blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a
race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation
may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.[/i]

Robert E. Lee, 1856

"racist" is such a loaded word...

-Mike

Sorry brother, but in MY opinion, the highlighted statement above is probably the most clearest, definitive exact example of Racism (Bigotry) I have ever read in my entire life.

That black people are better off, and may eventually become better by being hunted, chained, whipped, beaten, have children and spouses whipped, beaten, and then sold, to never earn or be allowed to own anything of value, to be kept uneducated, to be raped, and then killed when no longer of value to the owner doesn't seem like they were "better off" to me.

And then, to defend such practice as being better for the enslaved than freedom, is insanity.

 

As someone here has said, you can't judge the past by the standards of today:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where
it exists. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black
races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever
forbid their living together in perfect equality, and. . .I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the
race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but
there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights in the
Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is
as much entitled to these as the White man. I agree that the Negro is not my equal in many
respects…certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to
eat the bread. . . which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of every living man.

Abraham Lincoln  August 21, 1858

I agree on the different standards reflected in different times, to a point.

I don't believe the definition of bigotry, specifically racism, has changed in the last 200 years, though.  Both of the men cited above, were by the definition, racists.  If the quotes are accurate (I have no reason to believe either way), they believed that their race was superior to another.

At the same time, in other parts of the world, slavery had already been abolished, for quite awhile.  Standards of the day.....

[hubcapsc]

slavery had already been abolished

England, for example. They had some slaves, but mostly they sold slaves. They took
a big monetary hit by ending the Atlantic Slave Trade (it was illegal here by 1812
or so) but it wasn't a giant disruption in their society, as it was in the South
after the war.

England and the US abolished the Atlantic slave trade around the same time,
followed closely by most of Europe. International slave trade remained important
in South America and the Arab parts of the world, and the British navy treated
slave ships like pirates and freed thousands of slaves from them.

-Mike

[Serk]

While on the topic of different nations and times being held to different standards, although it is still commonly practiced even today, tolerant peaceful progressive Saudi Arabia, being the forward thinking nation that they are, banned slavery in 1962.

[3fan4life]

What is somewhat ironic is that if one took the time to read the works of Robert E. Lee one would find he was not a racist.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge,
that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is
useless to expatiate on its disadvantages... I think it however a greater evil
to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted
in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The
blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a
race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation
may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.[/i]

Robert E. Lee, 1856

"racist" is such a loaded word...

-Mike

Sorry brother, but in MY opinion, the highlighted statement above is probably the most clearest, definitive exact example of Racism (Bigotry) I have ever read in my entire life.

That black people are better off, and may eventually become better by being hunted, chained, whipped, beaten, have children and spouses whipped, beaten, and then sold, to never earn or be allowed to own anything of value, to be kept uneducated, to be raped, and then killed when no longer of value to the owner doesn't seem like they were "better off" to me.

And then, to defend such practice as being better for the enslaved than freedom, is insanity.

 

As someone here has said, you can't judge the past by the standards of today:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where
it exists. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black
races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever
forbid their living together in perfect equality, and. . .I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the
race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but
there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights in the
Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is
as much entitled to these as the White man. I agree that the Negro is not my equal in many
respects…certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to
eat the bread. . . which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of every living man.

Abraham Lincoln  August 21, 1858

I agree on the different standards reflected in different times, to a point.

I don't believe the definition of bigotry, specifically racism, has changed in the last 200 years, though.  Both of the men cited above, were by the definition, racists.  If the quotes are accurate (I have no reason to believe either way), they believed that their race was superior to another.

At the same time, in other parts of the world, slavery had already been abolished, for quite awhile.  Standards of the day.....

I don't believe that either of these men would've been classified as racist in their day.

Certainly not Abraham Lincoln after all he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

I believe that both were saying that black people should be free.

But, they were tempering their remarks by the societal standards of the time.


Don't forget that there was a time when blood letting was standard medical practice and a Dr would've been banned from medicine had he spoken out against it.

Now days can you imagine the size of the malpractice suit if a Dr intentionally blood letted a patient?





An interesting side note:

The word Racism did not exist during the American Civil War.

The word was derived from the French word racisme, and did not become part of the english language until sometime between 1865-70.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism

[phideux]

This is just getting ridiculous, let's get rid of everything related to slavery. Take down all of the monuments, tear apart most of Washington DC, Washington and Jefferson had slaves, Lincoln actually didn't "free the slaves" but was a supporter, close down the major ports in Rhode Island, Baltimore and New York, they were the 3 largest ports of entry for the slave trade. Now we have to go overseas and start dismantling the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Great Wall of China, the Roman Collesium, hell pretty much all of Rome and a large chunk of Europe were built up by slavery. We need to go over to Africa and condemn the Black Tribesman who originally captured and sold the slaves to the White Devils.

Throughout history one group or another was held in slavery. My relatives were held as slaves by Black people before America was even a country, so should we tear apart everything Black here because I am butt-hurt over it??? Where are my reparations???. Slavery is now dead in this country, nobody alive was a slave, and nobody alive was a slave owner, tearing down statues will not erase history or change it. Get over it and stop this stupidity already, or there will end up being another Civil war in this country. There are an estimated 300 million guns in this country, and trillions of rounds of ammo. If it starts, guess which side has the guns and the numbers????

[J.Mencalice]

This is just getting ridiculous, let's get rid of everything related to slavery. Take down all of the monuments, tear apart most of Washington DC, Washington and Jefferson had slaves, Lincoln actually didn't "free the slaves" but was a supporter, close down the major ports in Rhode Island, Baltimore and New York, they were the 3 largest ports of entry for the slave trade. Now we have to go overseas and start dismantling the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Great Wall of China, the Roman Collesium, hell pretty much all of Rome and a large chunk of Europe were built up by slavery. We need to go over to Africa and condemn the Black Tribesman who originally captured and sold the slaves to the White Devils.

Throughout history one group or another was held in slavery. My relatives were held as slaves by Black people before America was even a country, so should we tear apart everything Black here because I am butt-hurt over it??? Where are my reparations???. Slavery is now dead in this country, nobody alive was a slave, and nobody alive was a slave owner, tearing down statues will not erase history or change it. Get over it and stop this stupidity already, or there will end up being another Civil war in this country. There are an estimated 300 million guns in this country, and trillions of rounds of ammo. If it starts, guess which side has the guns and the numbers????

There are sex slaves in this country and around the world.
Open your eyes.

[Valkorado]

There are sex slaves in this country and around the world.

Trump's fault!

[phideux]

This is just getting ridiculous, let's get rid of everything related to slavery. Take down all of the monuments, tear apart most of Washington DC, Washington and Jefferson had slaves, Lincoln actually didn't "free the slaves" but was a supporter, close down the major ports in Rhode Island, Baltimore and New York, they were the 3 largest ports of entry for the slave trade. Now we have to go overseas and start dismantling the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Great Wall of China, the Roman Collesium, hell pretty much all of Rome and a large chunk of Europe were built up by slavery. We need to go over to Africa and condemn the Black Tribesman who originally captured and sold the slaves to the White Devils.

Throughout history one group or another was held in slavery. My relatives were held as slaves by Black people before America was even a country, so should we tear apart everything Black here because I am butt-hurt over it??? Where are my reparations???. Slavery is now dead in this country, nobody alive was a slave, and nobody alive was a slave owner, tearing down statues will not erase history or change it. Get over it and stop this stupidity already, or there will end up being another Civil war in this country. There are an estimated 300 million guns in this country, and trillions of rounds of ammo. If it starts, guess which side has the guns and the numbers????

There are sex slaves in this country and around the world.
Open your eyes.

That's a whole nother topic there.

[J.Mencalice]

There are sex slaves in this country and around the world.

Trump's fault!

Clock's off by about 12 minutes there in Gunnyville. ???

[J.Mencalice]

This is just getting ridiculous, let's get rid of everything related to slavery. Take down all of the monuments, tear apart most of Washington DC, Washington and Jefferson had slaves, Lincoln actually didn't "free the slaves" but was a supporter, close down the major ports in Rhode Island, Baltimore and New York, they were the 3 largest ports of entry for the slave trade. Now we have to go overseas and start dismantling the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Great Wall of China, the Roman Collesium, hell pretty much all of Rome and a large chunk of Europe were built up by slavery. We need to go over to Africa and condemn the Black Tribesman who originally captured and sold the slaves to the White Devils.

Throughout history one group or another was held in slavery. My relatives were held as slaves by Black people before America was even a country, so should we tear apart everything Black here because I am butt-hurt over it??? Where are my reparations???. Slavery is now dead in this country, nobody alive was a slave, and nobody alive was a slave owner, tearing down statues will not erase history or change it. Get over it and stop this stupidity already, or there will end up being another Civil war in this country. There are an estimated 300 million guns in this country, and trillions of rounds of ammo. If it starts, guess which side has the guns and the numbers????

There are sex slaves in this country and around the world.
Open your eyes.

That's a whole nother topic there.

You said slavery, I said slavery.  That's the same topic, unless your definition doesn't match mine.

[hubcapsc]

he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

That was an act of war. It "freed" all the slaves in the South
and none of the slaves in the states that did not secede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

-Mike

[phideux]

he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

That was an act of war. It "freed" all the slaves in the South
and none of the slaves in the states that did not secede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

-Mike

So it freed the slaves in the South but not in places like New York, New Jersey, DC, Missouri, Maryland, all the Northern states which held 25-30% of all the slaves in this country.

[hubcapsc]

he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

That was an act of war. It "freed" all the slaves in the South
and none of the slaves in the states that did not secede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

-Mike

So it freed the slaves in the South but not in places like New York, New Jersey, DC, Missouri, Maryland, all the Northern states which held 25-30% of all the slaves in this country.

It freed basically no one, Lincoln's proclamation was irrelevant in the South. It sealed
the deal on England and France siding with the Confederacy, though... Lincoln whipped
it out in a sense as "foreign policy"... had he done it after Chancellorsville he would have
been laughed at, but he jumped on it after Gettysburg...

-Mike

[Jess from VA]

So no, slavery was not the whole reason for the civil war, but yes, it was probably the single most important factor leading to war, along with all the other many economic and political issues which had long disadvantaged the South.  So lets put that to rest.

Instead, lets look at why the Antifa, BLM, and other leftist groups have decided all Confederate flags and statues must be taken down.  And in a loud and saber rattling manner.  Does anyone really believe they are so personally offended, so traumatically and emotionally injured by these longstanding monuments to past leaders and history, that they are acting through self preservation?  Do they all seek and need ongoing psychological counseling and prescribed medications for chronic PTSD, from seeing these statues/flags?  Do they really believe that white supremacists and KKK presently have so much power (and membership) that they constitute a clear and present danger to American democracy?  Do they think these groups come out at night and secretly worship at the alter of confederate statues?  And that once all the statues come down, these (small, weak) groups will simply disappear?

Or is it something else?  Could it be that this whole movement is nothing more than one method (of many) to continue agitating and stirring up hate and discontent against mainstream capitalism and the rule of law?  Isn't it a characteristic of leftists that they are always pushing the culture wars into new territory, even territory that the left itself would have called absurd overreach a few years ago?
    
Isn't this organized assault on confederate monuments simply a way to try and legitimize and make mainstream left wing political correctness, agitating, violence and lawlessness?

I will concede that aside from this, there may be a cogent and rational reason for wanting to remove monuments which some see as an ongoing celebration of white supremacy.  Though white supremacy is and has long been against the many laws of these United States.  If so, then maybe a national (and local) discussion should be held, and rational decisions made within the framework of democracy, and rule of law.  But that does not interest the left.  They want to flex their muscles and get out (of their parent's basements) into public and break things and scare people and disrupt, and get noticed in the media, who simply love to cover them in all their childish and self serving ways.

I think confederate monuments are simply being used as a convenient and easy tool to advance the power and prestige of a left wing agenda that goes far beyond a bunch of old statues (by people who mostly don't care about confederate monuments at all).  And the parallels with the hateful and murderous ISIS marching through the Middle East destroying all manner of ancient historical sites is compelling.

History should never be rewritten, or forgotten.  

[RP#62]

So, when do we start changing the names of buildings named after Robert Byrd and tearing down his statue?

"More than 50 buildings built with funds from US taxpayers directed to West Virginia are named for either Byrd or his wife, Erma Ora Byrd"

-RP

I don't think he would be a good example...

He saw the error of his ways, and regretted his involvement in the KKK for the rest of his days....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/106809-robert-byrd-a-true-statesman-rep-john-lewis

Sorry, doesn't fly.  Too little too late (learned that from my liberal friends).  Actually, one could probably make a better case for taking down the statue of a racist politician than a soldier.  Soldiers join the service either because they were conscripted or out of a sense of duty.  They do not have the luxury of voicing a political opinion, they do not pick and choose the battles they fight,  they follow orders and do their best to survive and protect their brothers.  Regardless of why the politicians chose to send them into battle, they do not deserve to be dishonored.

-RP

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

So no, slavery was not the whole reason for the civil war, but yes, it was probably the single most important factor leading to war, along with all the other many economic and political issues which had long disadvantaged the South.  So lets put that to rest.

Instead, lets look at why the Antifa, BLM, and other leftist groups have decided all Confederate flags and statues must be taken down.  And in a loud and saber rattling manner.  Does anyone really believe they are so personally offended, so traumatically and emotionally injured by these longstanding monuments to past leaders and history, that they are acting through self preservation?  Do they all seek and need ongoing psychological counseling and prescribed medications for chronic PTSD, from seeing these statues/flags?  Do they really believe that white supremacists and KKK presently have so much power (and membership) that they constitute a clear and present danger to American democracy?  Do they think these groups come out at night and secretly worship at the alter of confederate statues?  And that once all the statues come down, these (small, weak) groups will simply disappear?

Or is it something else?  Could it be that this whole movement is nothing more than one method (of many) to continue agitating and stirring up hate and discontent against mainstream capitalism and the rule of law?  Isn't it a characteristic of leftists that they are always pushing the culture wars into new territory, even territory that the left itself would have called absurd overreach a few years ago?
    
Isn't this organized assault on confederate monuments simply a way to try and legitimize and make mainstream left wing political correctness, agitating, violence and lawlessness?

I will concede that aside from this, there may be a cogent and rational reason for wanting to remove monuments which some see as an ongoing celebration of white supremacy.  Though white supremacy is and has long been against the many laws of these United States.  If so, then maybe a national (and local) discussion should be held, and rational decisions made within the framework of democracy, and rule of law.  But that does not interest the left.  They want to flex their muscles and get out (of their parent's basements) into public and break things and scare people and disrupt, and get noticed in the media, who simply love to cover them in all their childish and self serving ways.

I think confederate monuments are simply being used as a convenient and easy tool to advance the power and prestige of a left wing agenda that goes far beyond a bunch of old statues (by people who mostly don't care about confederate monuments at all).  And the parallels with the hateful and murderous ISIS marching through the Middle East destroying all manner of ancient historical sites is compelling.

History should never be rewritten, or forgotten.  

Very, very well said, and I think on target.

[old2soon]

So no, slavery was not the whole reason for the civil war, but yes, it was probably the single most important factor leading to war, along with all the other many economic and political issues which had long disadvantaged the South.  So lets put that to rest.

Instead, lets look at why the Antifa, BLM, and other leftist groups have decided all Confederate flags and statues must be taken down.  And in a loud and saber rattling manner.  Does anyone really believe they are so personally offended, so traumatically and emotionally injured by these longstanding monuments to past leaders and history, that they are acting through self preservation?  Do they all seek and need ongoing psychological counseling and prescribed medications for chronic PTSD, from seeing these statues/flags?  Do they really believe that white supremacists and KKK presently have so much power (and membership) that they constitute a clear and present danger to American democracy?  Do they think these groups come out at night and secretly worship at the alter of confederate statues?  And that once all the statues come down, these (small, weak) groups will simply disappear?

Or is it something else?  Could it be that this whole movement is nothing more than one method (of many) to continue agitating and stirring up hate and discontent against mainstream capitalism and the rule of law?  Isn't it a characteristic of leftists that they are always pushing the culture wars into new territory, even territory that the left itself would have called absurd overreach a few years ago?
    
Isn't this organized assault on confederate monuments simply a way to try and legitimize and make mainstream left wing political correctness, agitating, violence and lawlessness?

I will concede that aside from this, there may be a cogent and rational reason for wanting to remove monuments which some see as an ongoing celebration of white supremacy.  Though white supremacy is and has long been against the many laws of these United States.  If so, then maybe a national (and local) discussion should be held, and rational decisions made within the framework of democracy, and rule of law.  But that does not interest the left.  They want to flex their muscles and get out (of their parent's basements) into public and break things and scare people and disrupt, and get noticed in the media, who simply love to cover them in all their childish and self serving ways.

I think confederate monuments are simply being used as a convenient and easy tool to advance the power and prestige of a left wing agenda that goes far beyond a bunch of old statues (by people who mostly don't care about confederate monuments at all).  And the parallels with the hateful and murderous ISIS marching through the Middle East destroying all manner of ancient historical sites is compelling.

History should never be rewritten, or forgotten.  

Very, very well said, and I think on target.

                  Concur Agree and Right On!  Walks like a duck sounds like a duck yada yada! RIDE SAFE.

[Bighead]

Here is what many of you don't seem to get:

Nazis and white supremacists are fascists that believe that whites make up a race of superior humans.

Antifa is an anti-fascist movement and BLM is an equality movement.

If you do not see a major difference, then you aren't paying attention.  Fascism and anti-fascism are not two sides of the same coin.  White supremacy and Black equality are not two sides of the same coin.

If you want to build a shrine to hatred, or have statues and flags commemorating racist traitors, do so in your own home, not on public grounds.  The Civil War was a horrible time in our nation's history and should not be forgotten, but the racist losing side should not be glorified and commemorated especially in public places.

The confederates were not better soldiers.  Though true that they had less manpower and resources than the union, they had many advantages that were squandered.  The confederates didn't need to invade and attack the North, they simply had to defend the South which was a large geographic area. In north Virginia there is a series of rivers that provided a barrier to taking Richmond (the confederate capital).  Soldiers defending their families and homes, in an area they are familiar with, have an advantage over invaders that are fighting for the idea of a union.

What really lost the war for the South was poor military leadership and tactics.  General Lee pursued a military strategy that worked in the Mexican war, but was a flawed strategy for fighting vs the North.  The offensive-defensive strategy of holding defensive positions and then offensively attacking when conditions seemed right was a poor choice.  If they had maintained defensive positions, they would have fared much better, and possibly outlasted the North's will to fight.  Instead, Lee emphasized the offensive part of the offensive-defensive strategy, and the South literally bled itself to death in the first 3 years of the war.  Lee miscalculated against an enemy that was well led, and armed with rifles instead of much shorter range muskets.  Lee was a Virginian, and focused too much on Virginia and left the West to incompetent officers.  Also, the South was filled with deserters that just didn't have the will to fight.  

Long story short:  The South wrote a check their butt couldn't cash.

You sir are an educated IDIOT!

[Daddie O]

Well Bighead, what did they teach you down there in Alabama?  That whites are truly superior?  That Lee was brilliant but he lost the war for no reason at all?  That the confederate soldiers fighting on their home turf lost because they were superior soldiers commanded by brilliant military strategists?  That the south was full of brave men that would rather die than defect, desert, or surrender?  Maybe they taught you that the south was filled with better soldiers and commanders, but that they never ever had a chance of winning a war they started (aka writing a check their butt can't cash).

I'm educated, but I am not an idiot.  You calling me names on an online forum is like a chihuahua barking through a fence.  Not impressive in the least.  Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip!

[Bighead]

Well Bighead, what did they teach you down there in Alabama?  That whites are truly superior?  That Lee was brilliant but he lost the war for no reason at all?  That the confederate soldiers fighting on their home turf lost because they were superior soldiers commanded by brilliant military strategists?  That the south was full of brave men that would rather die than defect, desert, or surrender?  Maybe they taught you that the south was filled with better soldiers and commanders, but that they never ever had a chance of winning a war they started (aka writing a check their butt can't cash).

I'm educated, but I am not an idiot.  You calling me names on an online forum is like a chihuahua barking through a fence.  Not impressive in the least.  Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip!

Didn't teach ma any of what you stated but you sir are an educated IDIOT!!!!!

[Daddie O]

The logic of the conservatives that support Trump is sorely lacking.  It also proves true what Trump said, that he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and not lose any support from his backers.

When he said that Mexico doesn't send its best, but the just send drug dealers and murderers and rapists, you were ok with that?  Okay with him castigating an entire nation of people?  Okay with him saying that a federal judge was incapable of not being biased because his parents came from Mexico?

When he called on a total ban of people based on their religion, you were ok with that?  How does that jibe with the concept of a country based and founded on the principle of religious freedom?

When Trump said he liked to grab married women by their private parts, you were ok with that?  How does that jibe with your concept of being a good christian?

How is it that we call the people who fought against the Nazis as "The Greatest Generation", but Trump says many of the people marching with the Nazis in Virginia are "good people"?  Were they the greatest generation because they supported fascism, or because the fought against it?

You claim to be for freedom of speech, but then say that a government permit should be required to exercise it?

Twisted logic.

[Jess from VA]

Good reading on the subject of (mistakes made in) Charlottsville.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/16/charlottesville-never-had-to-happen-how-craven-politicians-led-our-nation-into-tragedy.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/16/gregg-jarrett-charlottesville-and-high-price-freedom.html

[Gavin_Sons]

The logic of the conservatives that support Trump is sorely lacking.  It also proves true what Trump said, that he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and not lose any support from his backers.

When he said that Mexico doesn't send its best, but the just send drug dealers and murderers and rapists, you were ok with that?  Okay with him castigating an entire nation of people?  Okay with him saying that a federal judge was incapable of not being biased because his parents came from Mexico?

When he called on a total ban of people based on their religion, you were ok with that?  How does that jibe with the concept of a country based and founded on the principle of religious freedom?

When Trump said he liked to grab married women by their private parts, you were ok with that?  How does that jibe with your concept of being a good christian?

How is it that we call the people who fought against the Nazis as "The Greatest Generation", but Trump says many of the people marching with the Nazis in Virginia are "good people"?  Were they the greatest generation because they supported fascism, or because the fought against it?

You claim to be for freedom of speech, but then say that a government permit should be required to exercise it?

Twisted logic.

You liberals sure see things differently than us conservatives. It's almost like you see and hear what you want. Only listen to parts of a statement and change the rest to fit your twisted narrative. We really cant totally blame you though. You do watch fake news and only read fake news sites. They must teach that in California. 

[Robert]

The logic of the conservatives that support Trump is sorely lacking.  It also proves true what Trump said, that he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and not lose any support from his backers.

When he said that Mexico doesn't send its best, but the just send drug dealers and murderers and rapists, you were ok with that?  Okay with him castigating an entire nation of people?  Okay with him saying that a federal judge was incapable of not being biased because his parents came from Mexico?

When he called on a total ban of people based on their religion, you were ok with that?  How does that jibe with the concept of a country based and founded on the principle of religious freedom?

When Trump said he liked to grab married women by their private parts, you were ok with that?  How does that jibe with your concept of being a good christian?

How is it that we call the people who fought against the Nazis as "The Greatest Generation", but Trump says many of the people marching with the Nazis in Virginia are "good people"?  Were they the greatest generation because they supported fascism, or because the fought against it?

You claim to be for freedom of speech, but then say that a government permit should be required to exercise it?

Twisted logic.

There are many who deserve to be treated as traitor to the US so if he shot someone maybe they deserved it.

 
Illegal alien, I say again Illegal alien, what it so hard to understand? Why are these people not going through the legal process to become US citizens when thinking about coming to the US. Maybe because they cant or  plan on sending money back to their families and have no alliance to the US. When things are bad they will go back to their home country.Mexico send MS 13 gang members, and those who need support, they file for social security and welfare, vote and have licensees get paid for having dependents here and are in Mexico, and no do not go through the investigative process to see who is coming in. What is so hard to understand that the rule of law for one is good for another. If I could relativity easily cross a boarder and improve my standard of living while not worrying about being illegal I would probably do it. Especially since I know there are farming jobs and other jobs waiting. But you have no idea who is crossing our boarder and actually are complicit in a crime in harboring a fugitive from law and someone who does not belong here.


The Federal judges have so much as said if Obama or Hillary had made the law then it would be legal, which Obama actually did. The judges ruled on the intent of the president and lack of seeing evidence for terrorism not on presidential powers that grant the president the power to do this. That is not the rule of law, ruling on a supposed prejudice instead of ruling on presidential powers. Not to mention Hawaii happens to have a Muslim population and is close to the judge that made the ruling so, corrupt judges, yes.

A total immigration ban on a few countries known to support terrorism because of an extreme religious belief that is Muslim in origin. I am ok and endorse doing it. Nazis and Muslims have something in common a belief that they need to kill those opposed to them. What is the difference? There are many peaceful Nazis also they do work among us. Those that are peaceful can stay, but how do we truly know if they are peaceful? By background checks and immigration laws that allow us to look into their past and if we arrest people from those countries and have intel that they support terrorism and cannot check backgrounds I'm fine with banning them.

 Immigration laws are there to protect the US so that is easy. What is so hard to understand that the rule of law for one is good for another. How about we remove all firearm laws and allow anyone to not go through background checks because in comparison we surely dont know who is coming here if we dont check their backgrounds as we do with those that want firearms. Both could kill or not but how do we know?

So when in a private conversation he was heard to say this and as a billionaire women will more than likely fall at his feet so maybe you have never been in position to be a bit cocky.

The right to assembly was for a peaceable assembly not a violent hate driven, paid political protest against a government to cause anarchy.

See wasn't that easy

[G-Man]

I don't believe that either of these men would've been classified as racist in their day.

Certainly not Abraham Lincoln after all he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

I believe that both were saying that black people should be free.

But, they were tempering their remarks by the societal standards of the time.


Don't forget that there was a time when blood letting was standard medical practice and a Dr would've been banned from medicine had he spoken out against it.

Now days can you imagine the size of the malpractice suit if a Dr intentionally blood letted a patient?





An interesting side note:

The word Racism did not exist during the American Civil War.

The word was derived from the French word racisme, and did not become part of the english language until sometime between 1865-70.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism

I had to come to an awful realization about 20 years ago.

I was raised in NYC, playing ball and going to school with kids of all colors.  I watched my father play ball with men of all colors.  I saw my parents interact with folks of all colors and never gave it a second thought.  Until I said I was getting engaged to a black woman. 

I used similar reasoning to explain their racism.  They grew up in different times.  Their parents were from a different place.  Etc.

But at the end of the day, they were bigots.  I'm sure there was a word that had the same meaning back then.  The idea, or concept surely wasn't new.