Tacky monument to racist Confederacy defaced by outraged Americans.

[UdoKier]

The headline above is mine. I don't see how you could call this "vandalism"




http://www.wftv.com/news/4634972/detail.html

Vandals Spray Black Paint Over Faces In Confederate Monument

A soldier sculpture, part of the Confederate Monument in Portsmouth, Va., is shown painted black on Monday, June 20, 2005.
PORTSMOUTH, Va. -- Vandals damaged the city's monument to Confederate soldiers by spraying black paint over the faces of statues representing four white rebel fighters.

The damage was discovered during the weekend at the memorial, which consists of a 56-foot-tall granite pillar surrounded by four metal figures representing the navy, cavalry, infantry and artillery branches of the Confederate military.
All are white.

"I think the Civil War is still sensitive to a segment of the South," Nancy Perry, the city's museum director, said Tuesday.

They are actually planning to squander $80,000 on a restoration for this thing. I'm sure it could be demolished and disposed of for much cheaper...

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I don't approve of vandalism for any reason.

[shadowknows69]

158. me either

justified civil disobedience on the other hand

[Yupster]

162. Same here

If people get to choose what they think they have a right to vandalize, there's no more rule of law.

Criminals. I hope they are caught and punished.

[ConfuZed]

185. I do :)

Now go cry to a bunch of racist kooks about it.

[justjones]

187. This is PLENTY of reason for me. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

2. Awwwwwwwwwwwww,

too bad.
Gee, I really hope the vandals don't keep it up after the restoration, that would be a shame.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. In Yanceyville NC there are plaques all over town acknowledging

the citizens and "coloreds" that fought in the war

[beam me up scottie]

6. Why, they should be

honored that they're mentioned at all ! :sarcasm:

[madeline_con]

202. coloreds

They called blacks 'coloreds' for quite a while. Should they go around and change them all to read 'African American'?

Do you know I've not Once heard an African American call himself that. They always say black.

[Career Prole]

4. Candidate for Stunning Understatement of the Year!

"I think the Civil War is still sensitive to a segment of the South." :D

[me b zola]

58. That line stood out for me as well

eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. Based on some of the participants in this thread, the Civil War...

...also appears be sensitive to a segment of the North.

[Career Prole]

78. Let it gooooooo.........

Let's all get outside a mess o' beers!! :toast:

[Berserker]

136. I did not even know

I was a Yankee until I lived in the South for a brief time. That was in the early 70s after I got out of the military. I was told that my history books were all wrong and everyone should own a Black man. Which pissed me off and I lost my job over it. Still sensitive my ass they alot of them still hate Yankees and blacks to this day.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

143. Sounds like you ran into a small minority of Southern whites who....

...actually believe that crap.

Seems to me that Northerners, particularly the DU posters in this thread, are more interested in being as personally abusive and insulting toward Southerners as possible. I've noticed some of the same posters in this thread who have been involved in threads bashing Southern DUers for the loss of the 2004 "election".

[Career Prole]

155. I'm a native Rhode Islander living in Texas

and it seems the nice folks/big jerks ratio is about the same...but some of the jerks here are jerks for different reasons than the jerks were back home.
I don't split hairs...a jerk's a jerk.

[Yupster]

163. I've lived in the south now for 25 years

and I've never heard anyone talk about how nice it would be to own another person.

Maybe I hang out with a better crowd.

[UdoKier]

190. So condemning a racist statue = "bashing Southern DUers"?

okayfinewhatever. :eyes:

[madeline_con]

204. oooooo!

BRAVO! :applause:

[madeline_con]

203. Maybe a few redneck illiterates...

but don't make it sound like all southerners are as stupid as those you met long ago.

[Selatius]

5. War was a stupid option anyway

They fired first at Fort Sumter.

[TheMightyFavog]

46. Yeah, and then they have the gall to call the war..

"The War of Northern Aggression"

:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. Perhaps a review of the causes of the American Civil War would do....

...you some good.

[Yupster]

164. So if they didn't fire on Fort Sumpter

they could have gone in peace?

Didn't think so.

[Kraklen]

7. Picture...

Oh, wait, that's the wrong racist monument defaced by patriotic Americans.

[madeline_con]

206. I'll take a stab at it...

Abu Ghraib?

[Shoeempress]

8. Thanks I needed a good laugh. Nancy Perry sounds like she needs

a long psychiatric evaluation, followed by large doses of Thorazine, Clonapine or other handy drugs.

[CarefullyLiberal]

9. Thats too bad...

To me, anonymous vandalism is a cowardly type of protest.

It would have been so much more interesting and memorable if the vandals dressed up as slaves with blackface.

The newspapers would have shown up and maybe even made national news.

Vandalism=dumb

-Fergus

[Kraklen]

10. Confederacy = dumber.

So the vandals come out looking better.

[manic expression]

11. Excuse me while I proceed to...

not give a sh** about what people feel about vandalism in this instance.

If there is something that is wrong (bigoted, in this case), then it is justified to deface it. Why would you respect something that is undeserving of any respect whatsoever?

I tip my hat to the people who did this.

[Yupster]

166. The problem is that if you give people the right

to break the law when they see wrong, then you have the problem of who gets to decide what's wrong.

It can't be you.

It needs to be the law.

[madeline_con]

207. That's censorship!

There are already enough busybodies running around deciding what we have the right to view, hear and believe.

They have appointed themselves the keepers of what's "appropriate", based on their ow prudish narrow minded POVs.

You're slipping down the slope with them. Grab that branch sticking out up ahead and save yourself.

:think:

[seabeyond]

12. Civil War is still sensitive to a segment

but...ttt fuck them, lets restore it at cost to taxpayers even though we recognize the sensitivity of this issue.

wow.

this makes sense

[mcscajun]

13. It's still vandalism, no matter what your feelings about the Confederacy.

We don't win anyone's mind by defacing their history, either here or abroad.

And just for clarity, the restoration was planned well before the vandalism. This is a monument that's been there over 100 years.

[UdoKier]

16. It's been there 100 years too long.

it should be replaced with a monument to the Africans who were abducted and enslaved, and the countless who perished.

[mcscajun]

18. Possibly true. But you don't get there by vandalism.

Nothing is accomplished that way.

And while I'm sure there are many, many people who are outraged, even after 100 years, that this monument stands, I doubt any of that outrage was involved in this incident. It was probably kids loose on summer vacation.

[UdoKier]

19. It's possible, of course...

But there are all kinds of things to vandalize in any town. They made a point of hitting this rather offensive statue.


The usefulness of this kind of defacement can be argued, but I personally do not bemoan the damage, and would not be the least bit saddened if somebody "accidentally" drove their monster truck over it.

[madeline_con]

208. FYI

Africans weren't the only people ever enslaved, and the Americas aren't the only place slaves were ever shipped to.

You want to deny historical facts. Rewrite history. Can't you handle the truth of our past?

[Donailin]

91. Maybe the PTB did it to get the $80,000 to restore it

I'd put nothing past the radical right.

nothing.

[Ravy]

14. 80 grand???? Are they giving the contract to Halliburton? (n/t)

[billbuckhead]

15. They ought to pull the statue down like Saddam's statute

Freedom is on the march!

[Igel]

17. You're right.

I can't imagine a memorial to German soldiers that were drafted in WWII and died. Good riddance to them. No?

It's not a memorial to the Confederacy as an idea or ideal. It's apparently--according to the article--a memorial to the dead.

I was in Brno when they were rededicating a rather large monument. It had been celebrating the glorious USSR and the Red Army. The rededicated monument was a memorial to the dead that fought in the war.

I may not agree that the US should be in Iraq. But I'd take offense at people that said the US soldiers that die in Iraq should not be mourned.

[FreedomAngel82]

94. I think it's rude and heartless

to have a statue of people like that in public. Now if it was a museum that told the history of all that with the civil war that might be different. This was just rude and heartless.

[madeline_con]

211. not in public?

Out of sight out of mind, huh?

Is there something wrong with admitting our own history?

Do we destroy the Vietnam Memorial too, if we protested that war??!!

[madeline_con]

209. no doubt

it's a blatant case of nepotism, I'm sure.

[formernaderite]

20. The confederacy was a part of our history....

I don't want it eraced, ignored or vandalized. Geez... defacing things we don't agree with is akin to the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas. Sorry, I just don't understand this sort of behavior.

[UdoKier]

21. It's a part of our history that deserves burial without honors, IMO.

nt

[Kraklen]

22. Nazi Germany was part of our history too.

We defeated them, just like the confederacy.

I don't want to have giant swastikas in public places.

Just for the record, are you calling our troops "the Taliban?"

[GodHelpUsAll2]

23. What the hell????

I can't believe people are advocating this behavior. The civil war did happen, the confederacy was real. It's a part of this country's history. If, as some of you advocate, all things "bad" and "Offensive" in this country should be vandalized or destroyed then we better get busy cause we have a LOT of demolishing to do.

Should the White House be standing still? After all it has been the source of much corruption and wrong doing. Should the Stars and Stripes still be flown? After all it is practically dripping with blood. How about the Vietnam memorial wall? Look at what we did there. Shall I go on?

edited for typos

[Kraklen]

24. So you're saying you'd support a big Nazi swastika memorial?

Is that what you're saying.

Hell yes, I support this vandalism, and there should be more people doing it.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

25. I don;t recall

even hinting at anything about a swastika memorial.

However you did not answer my question. Typically, you responded with a question pulled out of thin air that is totally out of left field and has nothing at all to do with the questions I raised. A common way to avoid the original question. So I will ask you again, should all of those others things I mentioned be left standing? Or do you only support the destruction of the things that YOU choose?

[Kraklen]

27. Just asking.

Because the same kind of person who'd support a Confederacy memorial is the same kind of person who'd support a Nazi memorial.

I would rather the White House be left standing. But the White House isn't intrinsically a symbol of white supremacy and the violation human rights.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

28. Surely

you jest.
And excuse me, but who are you that KNOW that because a person supports A then they automatically support B? Also, you might want to rethink that stance that the White House is not a source of racisim and human and civil rights unjustices.

[Kraklen]

34. No joke.

And while there have been and are racists in the WH, does not mean it's intrinsically founded in the belief of the superiority of the white race over others, such as the Confederacy and the Nazi party.

You can't support the Nazis without being anti-semitic, you can't support the Confederacy without being racist.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. While I agree that you can't be a Nazi without being anti-semitic,...

...but as to your comment that "you can't support the Confederacy without being racist", 95% of those that joined the Confederate cause were not slave-owners. They were only interested in protecting their families, farms, crops, and farm animals from the invading Union forces.

Additionally, do you also think that the 50,000 to 65,000 Blacks that served in Confederate units were "racists"? And if so, maybe you could explain your thinking on that subject.

By the way...keep posting because the hole you're digging for yourself is becoming quite large.

[Kraklen]

51. 95% of the German Wehrmacht never gassed any jews.

To say the Civil War wasn't about slavery and racism is historical revisionism on par with holocaust denial.

The 50-65,000 blacks forced to fight for the Confederacy pales in comparison to the millions killed, raped, and enslaved by the South.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

63. And to say

the north was completely innocent and not of the same mind is complete denial. Or complete ignorance. You choose.

[Kraklen]

74. Who said anything about the North?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

79. Read the thread

I mean actually READ it.

Confederate "Soldiers" if thats what you call them, were nothing more than a bunch of Mohomed Attas! While we in the North believed in freedom and an end to slavery, the Confederate "Terrorists", were fighting to keep people enslaved under the guise of "states rights".

Now, answer the question that I have asked numerous time in this very thread. Do you also support the demolishing of all civil war monuments in the North as well?

[Kraklen]

80. Nobody ever said anything about the North.

The US interred Japanese during WWII, is that supposed to make Nazi Germany any less evil?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

82. You just can't

do it can you? You can't answer a direct question or respond with some fashion of intelligence. Instead you talk about Germany, the Japanese and WWII. Tell me prey tell, what does Germany or the Japanese have to do with the civil war? I'm dieing to know.

[Kraklen]

86. What question. Dismantle Civil War monuments in the North?

No. While the many in the North didn't have the slaves' best interest at heart, unlike the South they weren't fighting to preserve slavery.

What kind of ridiculous question is that? That's like asking if because there were some anti-semitic U.S. troops in WWII that we shouldn't honor U.S. veterans of WWII.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

93. I see

So you yourself are a racisist of sorts. It appears to be based on geographics. So we can assume that you are of the same variety as the "color of skin" type racisists. After all, hate is hate right?

Let me make sure I have this clear, even know many in the north didn't have the slave's best interest at heart (your own words) at least we wern't openly admiting it. That is what you just said correct? So in your mind, as long as you keep it quiet and don't openly admit it it's ok?

[Kraklen]

95. LOL.

Yes, and I'm "racist" against Germans as well.

You're right, I don't judge people based on the "color of skin." I judge based on the content of their character.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

99. sigh...

sill.....nothing of substance. Only personal opinion.

My hope of wide spread knowlegde is still alive. I will continue to hope for you.

[Kraklen]

103. I agree. You're only giving your personal opinion.

You've given nothing of substance, no facts that have anything to do with any of my statements. Just chucking and diving, and personal attacks.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

133. Now that is funny

You have been provided with many many links to the facts. Where they didn't come directly from me they were there. But since you insist. I will provide you with a few.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/
a bit about the American revolution. You can find how France help us out. I talked about that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/
to help you learn that we did not single handedly defeat Nazi German. The Russians might tend to agree with me.

http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
the emancipation proclamation which I touched on from someone else's post

http://selfknowledge.com/43150.htm
a link to explain the definition of hate. Talked about that also

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html

the civil rights movement in America (just so you can be clear that our White House is squeaky clean) Definitely talked about that


Do you need any more?? Now, since we are on the subject of nothing to back it up only personal opinion. Still waiting


p.s You can go to Google and find all of this. It's spelled
G-O-O-G-L-E

[GodHelpUsAll2]

96. Also

Just a little tid bit for ya, there were non slave owning confederate veterans also But by your definition, no they should not be honored. So tell me, which is it??? Make up your mind.

[Kraklen]

100. No kidding.

But they were all fighting for slavery. Like I said earlier, there were German infantry men that never actually gassed jews themselves, so there you go.

[tx_dem41]

83. "While we in the North believed in freedom and an end to slavery"

Is THAT what those Northerners were believing in when they were attacking blacks in the streets of NYC during the draft riots? I didn't realize that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots


A wise person would realize that no one is free of guilt, and thus, refrain from making arrogant statements.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

84. Key words

being "wise person"

[tx_dem41]

90. Yes....

they are obviously few and far between.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

102. sad but true n/t

[fishwax]

118. Who said the north was innocent?

Umm ... nobody? Nobody claimed the north was perfect. But in the civil war, the south did fight to preserve slavery. The north did fight to end slavery (with this cause becoming more prominent and central in the last couple of years). There may have been additional reasons on the parts of individuals and organizations, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

127. Can't anyone

read? Go back and read this thread. Then get back to me on that.

[fishwax]

132. Well I did a search of the thread

and only found innocent in your post and in a similar (sarcastic) "oh yeah, and the north was innocent" post. So perhaps you could point the direction, since you're so certain it exists.

Searching the thread for "north" brings up mostly posts saying "well the north was bad too," and absolutely ZERO posts saying "the north was perfect" "the north was innocent" or "everyone on the northern side was so morally superior that the union army very nearly evolved into pure energy."

Post 40 is as close as it comes:
"While we in the North believed in freedom and an end to slavery, the Confederate "Terrorists", were fighting to keep people enslaved under the guise of "states rights".

That hardly says that the north was innocent or perfect or free of racism, but you've gotten plenty of mileage out of it.

So again, if you can find it, please show me.

(edited for typo/clarity)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

135. Internet 101

You can learn to use it there.

[fishwax]

141. Meaningless Responses with Zero Substance 101

are you teaching the course? Or just giving a guest lecture?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

137. If the North's primary objective had been to end slavery, why didn't....

...Lincoln declare that all slaves were free before the beginning of the Civil War?

Why did Lincoln wait until 1862 following the Battle of Antietam to issue his Emancipation Declaration?

Why did the Emancipation Declaration of 1862 only free those slaves still living in territory controlled by the Confederacy? Why didn't it free the slaves that were already living in areas under Union control?

In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was used by Lincoln as a political tool, in hopes that slaves would rebel across the South to add more strain to the Confederacy.

And what do you know of what Lincoln really thought about Blacks? Ever hear of Liberia and Lincoln's pre-Civil War proposal that all Blacks be sent to that African territory? Did you also know that Lincoln talked to Black leaders in 1862 and asked them to seriously consider moving to Liberia?

[fishwax]

150. You should try arguing without distorting other people's words

I didn't say it was the primary objective. Lincoln cared most about preserving the union. Plenty of activists cared only about eliminating slavery. Some of the individual soldiers may not have even cared about either, but had their own reasons for fighting. Over the course of the war, abolition became increasingly frontward as the moral cause for which the north fought. (That was part of the political calculus of the EP as well.)

What you have to say about Lincoln still is not new, and (as before) it's still irrelevant to the point about how your claim that there are no memorials to white supremacist organizations. (on edit: whoops, that was the point of a different subthread :))

[BluGrl]

171. Don't forget the North's equality treatment...

Don't forget that the Union had such high esteem for the former slaves they were freeing in the south that they treated them "equally" as well as the whites. They stole their property, raped their women and killed many that refused to fight for the Union army.

[Yupster]

174. And actually passed laws

prohibitting freedmen from entering their state.

[Tomee450]

189. You are just trying to change the subject.

We are discussing honoring the Confederacy which was formed to preserve slavery. The North had no great love for the slaves and in many instances treated blacks very badly. Nevertheless, the south went to war to maintain an institution that dehumanized millions and wanted to extend that evil elsewhere. That is why the Confederacy, IMHO, should never be honored.

[UdoKier]

192. You're going around in circles trying to find ways to rationalize/justify

these monuments, but you know damn well that like the confederate battle flag, these monuments carry a great deal of emotional weight and symbolism, and are a slap in the face of African-Americans and just about anyone who believes in human rights.

Were there decent, non-slaveholding confederate soldiers? Sure, but they were still fighting for a filthy regime that was justly defeated. Is the US also drenched in the blood of native peoples and African-Americans? Yes, but unlike the confederacy, it has a constitution that is supposed to grant equal rights to all people, and was making pretty decent progress towards those ideals until the last ten years or so.

If the confederacy had prevailed, blacks would probably still be enslaved today.

As for Lincoln's Liberia idea, wasn't that a relatively progressive idea for its time?

By the way, I'm a native of Texas, and when I lived there, the ONLY people who flew confederate flags were racist jerks. Even if the confederacy itself wasn't pure evil, it's image has been corrupted byond redemption, and its symbols cannot be displayed without being insulting and hurtful to African-Americans.

[madeline_con]

221. Also

to break the economy of the South.

[madeline_con]

218. I'll say something about it.

While discussing all the mistreatment that went on in the South, let us never forget the children in northern factories who slaved away for 12 and 14 hours a day before child labor laws were passed.

Or is that different?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. "Forced to fight for the Confederacy"?? Have you read the link...

...I supplied on that subject?

And I guess you want to overlook that slavery in America was also present in the Northern colonies. Read this link:

What are the origins of American Slavery?
<http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/con_slavery.cfm>

QUOTES:

In 1690, one out of every nine families in Boston owned a slave. In New York City, in 1703, two out of every five families owned a slave. From Newport, Rhode Island to Buenos Aires, black slaves could be found in virtually every New World area colonized by Europeans.

Black slaves arrived in the New World at least as early as 1502. Over the next three centuries, slave traders brought at least fifteen million Africans to the New World (another twenty percent or more Africans died during the march to the West African coast and an additional twenty percent perished during the "middle passage" across the Atlantic Ocean).

...snip...

Few questions have aroused more bitter debate or evoked more impassioned controversy than the origins of black slavery. Was it, as some have argued, the product of deep seated racial prejudice? Certainly, there is a great deal of evidence showing that many Europeans held deeply racist sentiments well before the establishment of the institution of slavery. We know, for example, that Elizabethan Englishmen associated blackness with evil, death, and danger. They portrayed the devil as having black skin and associated beauty with fairness of skin. Through their religion, too Englishmen denigrated Africans, claiming that Negroes were the descendants of Noah's son Ham, who, according to the Old Testament, was cursed by having black offspring for daring to look upon his father drunk and naked while his brothers averted their eyes. (In fact, Ham was not the Biblical ancestor of Africans).

Long before the English had much contact with Africans racist stereotypes were already widespread. One English writer claimed that Negroes were naturally "addicted unto Treason, Treacherie, Murther, Theft and Robberie." Without a doubt, Englishmen considered Africans an alien and unassimilable people.

And here's another link you should read:

Chronology on the History of Slavery and Racism
<http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html>

QUOTE:

1619
The other crucial event that would play a role in the development of America was the arrival of Africans to Jamestown. A Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619. The Africans became indentured servants, similar in legal position to many poor Englishmen who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America. The popular conception of a racial-based slave system did not develop until the 1680's. (A Brief History of Jamestown, The Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Richmond, VA 23220, email: [e-mail], Web published February, 2000)

...snip...

1620
The Pilgrims settled at Plymouth Massachusetts. ". Plymouth, for the most part, had servants and not slaves, meaning that most black servants were given their freedom after turning 25 years old--under similar contractual arrangement as English apprenticeships." (Were there any blacks on the Mayflower? By Caleb Johnson member of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants)

...snip...

1624
New Amsterdam- The Dutch, who had entered the slave trade in 1621 with the formation of the Dutch West Indies Co., import blacks to serve on Hudson Valley farms. According to Dutch law, the children of manumitted (freed) slaves are bound to slavery. (Chronology: A Historical Review, Major Events in Black History 1492 thru 1953 by Roger Davis and Wanda Neal-Davis)

...snip...

1641
Massachusetts colony legalizes slavery. (Underground Railroad Chronology, National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/boaf/urrtim~1.htm)

[hiphopnation]

66. pardon, but

poster never said the civil war wasn't about slavery and racism. You said that. Those are just two of the many issues that led up to and were causes of the war. To state that the Civil War was "a war about slavery" is an alarming oversimplification. It can't be reduced to that. Just as WWII cannot simply be reduced to a war about the holocaust. It was about a multitude of factors one of which was the Holocaust. This kind of approach is akin to disecting a butterfly with a chainsaw. It's also the kind of "black/white" "right/wrong" approach that our current dickweed in chief proudly employs when dealing with complex matters of the world.

nothing in life is that simple.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. Excellent post...very nicely stated.

[Kraklen]

75. And WWII was more than about the holocaust

and Nazi aggression. But that's what the Nazi legacy boils down too.

The Civil War was about slavery. You can come up with other arguments: states rights, representation in Congress, etc. but they all lead back to slavery.

[hiphopnation]

87. it's not "me" coming up with "arguments"

it's "history" presenting "facts".

you need to go read some books. several of them.

i'd try to point you in the right direction but, as evidenced from your posting in this thread, i'm pretty sure you won't listen

you go on beleiving what you want to, buddy boy. Good luck wiuth all this. :thumbsup:

[Kraklen]

88. I'd say the same to you.

Serious.

[Tomee450]

104. I strongly disagree.

The articles of secession said that slavery was the issue. The south not only wanted to maintain slavery but also desired to have it extended to other territories as well. The confederacy was formed to preserve slavery and no revisionist history will erase that fact.

[Kraklen]

107. Yup.

There were a number of important confederate bigwigs on the record sying the whole thing was about slavery.

Not that revisionist historians haven't tried and are trying now.

[madeline_con]

219. who's a revisionist?

You want to tear down monuments that relay factual information to future generations! Pot calling the kettle black, pal.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

123. Do you have a link?

[Tomee450]

128. I am sure you are very capable of

doing a search.

It is very clear from reading those articles that slavery was THE issue.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

144. Provide the link, and I'll read it. Don't provide it, and I'll just....

...have to believe that you don't know what you're talking about.

Your choice.

[Tomee450]

148. Nope, do your own research.

If you do, you'll discover that my statements are true. It should be easy for you to find the Article of Secession for each state. If you don't bother, one can assume that you wish to remain in denial.

[QC]

205. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. n/t

[GodHelpUsAll2]

138. Do you notice

that people demand a link but in turn they offer nothing?

It's been a pleasue seeing a rational poster. Have a good one. I am done beating my head againt a wall to no avail this evening!

[BluGrl]

176. Of course it was about slavery....

Just don't fool yourself into thinking that the North had any noble intentions of ending the practice. The reality is that there was political and economic pressure from across the pond to end slavery.

The North was lagging economically while the South was doing very well. It was to their economic advantage to end slavery in the South to gain favor (and business) in Europe and they didn't even have to give back a dime of their lucrative slave trade money. Now that's a sweet deal, don't ya think?

Or you could just pretend that they were just morally superior to the South...but we'd have to laugh. LOL

[fishwax]

188. Actually, many in Europe supported the south

England, particularly, probably would have liked to put it's political and economic weight behind the south, as it had business interests in common with the south and feared the industrializing north as an economic competitor.

At the outset of the war, england maintained an official stance of neutrality. A fear of democracy on the party of the ruling classes (and a feeling of kinship b/w the british and southern "aristocracy") also pushed sentiment in favor of the south.

Rather than receiving economic pressure from europe to end slavery, the union actually used abolition as a sort of humanitarian appeal for support from england/europe. It didn't work at the beginning of the war. Part of the political calculus of the Emancipation Proclomation was that it put slavery at the center of the war effort, which was a huge boost to recruiting support for the union cause abroad.

[madeline_con]

220. England had "business interests"

Not the least of which was the fact that they were the biggest slave traders in the world at one time.

My British online buddy used to hate for me to point that out to him! HA

[The Magistrate]

216. Nonesense, Ma'am

The states that became the Confederacy were the economic laggards of the Union, a fact amply demonstrated by the course of the war. The Confederacy was incapable of manufacturing the weaponry needed to field and maintain its armies. The blockade had nothing to do with that, for the necessary raw materials were present; what was lacking were factories, manufacturing plants, railroads, indeed, all the appurtances of a prosperous and developed economy. Basically, the states of the Confederacy sold an agricultural product into an uncertain market, and that was all. A tremendous amount of capital was tied up in that production owing to the slave labor system, and it was not an optimum use of that capital value. The year before the war, the hay crop of the states that would remain in the Union had a greater cash value than the cotton crop of the southern states. The real estate values of New York City alone were comparable to the real estate values of lands devoted to cotton production in the same period. That, Ma'am, is not properity but backwater.

As to the matter at issue, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest seems a reliable authority: "If we ain't fightin' fer slavery, I'd like to know what the Hell we're fightin' fer!"

[UdoKier]

193. It's not that simple, but it is.

There were a multitude of reasons for the war, but the Holocaust is the primary reason why displays of the swastika are met with revulsion by decent people. It's not because Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, or because he had his goons burn the Reichstag.

[Tomee450]

98. Oh please

such revisionist history. Yes there were blacks who fought for the confederacy but they were few in number and many did so because they were promised their freedom or the freedom of their loved ones. The confederacy deserves no honors. It was formed to maintain the enslavement of millions of people. Those farmers who fought knew exactly what they were doing. They too, were fighting to preserve their way of life, a way of life that included the buying and selling of fellow human beings. There should be no monuments to honor people who fought to maintain something as evil as slavery.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

131. 50,000 to 60,000 Black Confederates is "few in number"? Interesting....

...You also stated, "those farmers who fought knew exactly what they were doing. They too, were fighting to preserve their way of life, a way of life that included the buying and selling of fellow human beings".

How could the 95% of Southerners who fought for the Confederacy, and never owned any slaves during their lifetime, have been fighting to preserve "the buying and selling of fellow human beings"? What did a Southern dirt-poor farmer know of slavery but the infrequent glimpse of slaves working in the fileds of a plantation while he worked his own field?

None of my many Southern ancestors from Virginia owned slaves at the beginning of the Civil War. As far as I know from my genealogical studies, none of those family lines owned slaves as far back as I can trace them. My family lines are very much typical of all Southerners but the most wealthy at the start of the Civil War.

I have about 50 letters written back and forth during 1861-1862 from one of my sets of great-great-great grandparents. Not one of those leters EVER mentioned fighting to preserve slavery. Nearly every single letter from my great-great-great-grandfather expressed great concern about the well-being of his wife and children and the upkeep of the farm. Nearly every letter in response was an inquiry as to her husband's health and well-being, and whether or not he had enough to eat. The letters ended in late 1862 because he was sent back to the hospital system outside Richmond, where he died of disease.

"Revisionist history", IMHO, is history written by the winning side to vilify the losing side. "Revisionist history" is NOT what people like you believe about the South, and why 95% of Southerners fought against the Union.

[Tomee450]

145. Sorry, I don't buy

your argument. I still say revisionist history. Those dirt farmers thought they were better than the slaves, looked down on them and some aspired to slave ownership themselves. The ruling elites convinced the poor whites that they were superior to blacks. That attitude continues to this day.

The south went to war to continue the enslavement of millions of blacks. Thousands of poor whites supported that war and fought for it. They too, wanted to preserve that way of life. If the south had won, slavery would have endured for many, many years and a people, the blacks, would have lived without hope.

As for blacks fighting for the Confederacy, I don't believe those figures. I've read that some blacks fought solely to gain their freedom. When most slaves had the opportunity, they fled to the union lines. Why would a slave want to fight to keep himself in bondage? It's just nonsense to assert that blacks willingly fought for the Confederacy. They did so only if they thought they would benefit somehow, and that benefit was their freedom or that of their loved ones.

Supporters of the Confederacy have been engaging in revisionist history for a long time. Some have written books claiming that the slaves were happy and treated kindly. All of that is noting but lying and few people are buying such nonsense. All one has to do is read the slave narratives to get a clear picture of how really horrible slavery was. The confederacy, formed to maintain an evil instiution, deserves no honor.

[BluGrl]

180. You really don't know?

"Why would a slave want to fight to keep himself in bondage?"

You really don't know, do you? It's because they saw what the Union army was doing to people and property in the south. Let's just say that they all didn't feel like the Union soldiers were their "heroes" for good reason.

[Tomee450]

191. Baloney

Why would slaves care about what the Union army was doing? They had no power, no control over anything, not even their own bodies. They had no land, no property whatsoever. They were slaves, unpaid laborers. Thousands of slaves fled when they had the chance to get to the union lines. There were so many fleeing that the Union officers did not know what to do with all of them. The slaves wanted freedom. What do you think the Underground Railroad was about? What do you think Harriet Tubman was doing when she repeatedly went into the south? She was freeing slaves. The slaves fought because they were forced to do so and because they were sometimes promised freedom. Blacks did not want to remain slaves as shown by the fact that so many risked their lives to escape to the north and to Canada.

[UdoKier]

194. Or they were just brainwashed by their owners

Much like working-class repugs are brainwashed by their corporate masters via Fox News today...

[ISUGRADIA]

Please...Blacks did not "fight" for the confederacy

they were mainly slaves forced into support rolls in the army:

"Armstrong says some of the blacks with the Confederate army were cooks, foragers, teamsters and personal servants. There were others: George Dance, the color bearer of the 8th Tennessee, and musicians and fifers. Forrest's escort company included 45 of his slaves, 20 of whom went home with him after the war. Estimates are that 5 to 10 percent of the Confederate army was blacks."

http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/black_rebels.htm

They were not volunteers. They did not carry guns. Look at Jefferson Davis:


In January, 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of the Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers since the Union was using black troops. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived. Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused to consider Cleburne's proposal and forbade further discussion of the idea. The concept, however, did not die. By the fall of 1864, the South was losing more and more ground, and some believed that only by arming the slaves could defeat be averted. On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14, and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, 1865, but only a few African American companies were raised, and the war ended before they could be used in battle.

http://www.africanamericans.com/CivilWar.htm

[ISUGRADIA]

165. Please...Blacks did not "fight" for the confederacy

they were mainly slaves forced into support rolls in the army:

"Armstrong says some of the blacks with the Confederate army were cooks, foragers, teamsters and personal servants. There were others: George Dance, the color bearer of the 8th Tennessee, and musicians and fifers. Forrest's escort company included 45 of his slaves, 20 of whom went home with him after the war. Estimates are that 5 to 10 percent of the Confederate army was blacks."

http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/black_rebels.htm

They were not volunteers. They did not carry guns. Look at Jefferson Davis:


In January, 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of the Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers since the Union was using black troops. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived. Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused to consider Cleburne's proposal and forbade further discussion of the idea. The concept, however, did not die. By the fall of 1864, the South was losing more and more ground, and some believed that only by arming the slaves could defeat be averted. On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14, and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, 1865, but only a few African American companies were raised, and the war ended before they could be used in battle.

http://www.africanamericans.com/CivilWar.htm

[BluGrl]

179. Do you remember what this country did AFTER

they freed the slaves? Those noble Union soldiers (specifically Sherman) were commissioned to go slaughter Native American Indians.

This country's army didn't give a sh*t about the slaves or freeing them for moral reasons.

[The Magistrate]

217. No Government, Ma'am, Ever Does Anything For Moral Reasons

Morals and government bear the approximate relation of fish and bicycles....

[ISUGRADIA]

161. "50,000 to 65,000 Blacks that served in Confederate units "

Surely you jest. You mean soldiers with guns or slaves who did grunt work and had no choice? Where does this figure come from?

[Yupster]

173. There has been tons of research

on the subject of A-A's in the Confederacy.

The best book on the subject I've read is this one. It's a very scholarly (dull) work which only covers the state of Virginia, but it's the best researched and fairest effort I've seen by an author who doesn't have a point to prove on one side or the other.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813915457/qid=1119413095/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7694160-2948959?v=glance&s=books

Overall, it's a very complicated story.

Get the book from your local library and you'll enjoy it.

Many A-A's crossed the lines and many joined the Union army. Many worked to defend their state as teamsters, cooks, etc. Most stayed out of the war and just hoped it would pass them by. Many slaves bought Confederate war bonds was a surprise to me.

Virginia had the second highest number of free A-A's (50,000) at the start of the war (Maryland first) and they were an even more complicated story.

[BluGrl]

183. Seriously...try this comparison

Frederick Douglass in a letter:
"There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government."


Treatment of black soldiers in a regiment from the North:
http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/prm/blsoldiersinblue2.htm

[Yupster]

169. Many who joined the Confederacy were

against secession.

Hell, the Vice-president of the Confederacy was against secession.

The President stayed in Washington working to keep the south in the union long after the other politicians had given up and gone home.

Once the decision was made by democratic vote, the people rallied to their country's cause. Once the north invaded, the arguments over secession were set aside and the people fought in defense of their homes, slaveowners or not, secessionists or not.

By the time the war was over fully one fourth of the adult white men in the south were dead and another fourth wounded.

That means that each town had a 50-50 chance of having more or less than 50 % of their adult white men killed or wounded. It's no surprise that after losses like that, they put up monuments to the one fourth of their neigbors who were killed.

Also, the way the Confederacy formed its regiments was by county, so when a charge was made and took 80 % losses, that meant that 80 % of the men of a county were killed or wounded in a single day. That's the kind of losses that leads to statues being built.

We've never had another war remotely close to those kind of losses.

[madeline_con]

215. More FYI

Support the Confederacy? Now you're just twisting it to suit your little interpretation of how some of us feel.

Those of us who are outraged by the vandalism support conservation of our history, not necessarily the Confederacy!

[onenote]

31. support for confed memorial = support for nazis: so lame its almost funny

I take offense when the stars and bars is flown and particularly if its given an official imprimatur. But historical statues are just that -- part of our history and, in many instances, memorials to those who died. I was no fan of the Vietnam War, but I think the Vietnam War memorial is a powerful and valuable monument. Covering up history only allows it to repeat itself. And last time I checked the history books, it was Germany that produced the Nazis, not the US, so why exactly would there be a Nazi memorial in the US?

onenote

[left hand man]

48. I Agree about history --- The Civil War was about MORE than slavery

It was also about the federal govt. being able to override the rights of the states-- many good and able leaders and men were lost in this REVOLUTION against the imperial federal government-- the combatants (on both sides) should be honored for their dedication to a cause that they believed in (Times have changed but the ideas of freedom from federal government have not)------my humble opinion

[Kraklen]

76. Yeah, overriding the rights of the states...

to keep and own slaves.

This, "it wasn't really about slavery" bullshit is and was pro-south historical revisionism cooked up back in the twenties with the Klan revivals.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

146. Right. Whatever you say. Keep on posting that single-issue crap.

[alarimer]

159. They fought over slavery for decades before the Civil War

Remember Bloody Kansas? The issue came to a head when the Republican Party was formed specifically around abolition. Because Lincoln was elected, the South seceded. Now Lincoln himself was not as anti-slavery as some others; he wanted it to end gradually rather than all at once. So I don't know how anyone can say the war was not about slavery. It most certainly was and no amount of revision can change that. What other states' rights' issues were there? Confederate apologists talk about a "way of life" or some bullshit like that but what else could it mean?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. You don't have a clue, do you? Maybe you ought to try to do some....

...research on what other countries think about the American flag, White House, and Herr Busch. Maybe you ought to also do some research on the folks that make up PNAC, the people we refer to as NeoCons.

The last time I looked:

*The Confederacy was not involved in building concentration camps for the purpose of eradicating a certain ethnic group.

*Prescott Bush, Herr Busch's grandfather, was involved in loaning money to Nazi Germany for the purpose of building Auschwitz.

*George H. W. Bush was a BIG supporter of eugenics, the "science" of promoting white racial purity.

*The terrible Confederate POW camp in Andersonville was easily rivaled by the equally terrible Union POW camps at Fort Delaware. Elmira, NY, and Rock Island, Illinois.

Personally, I would rather have this discussion with someone that knows what they're talking about.

[madeline_con]

214. Take it back!

You're being very naughty indeed. And how dare you, well I never and all that!

What a load of horse shit to say a thing like that.

I support our heritage, whether you find it offensive or not.

If Germans want a huge swastika, cool. That's THEIR heritage, not ours, get it?!

:mad:

[madeline_con]

213. oh those darn Nazis

they're so convenient to mention when a disagreement arises.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. And when you try to vandalize a public monument, I personally hope....

...that you get caught. Perhaps community service scrubbing your city's public memorials might cause you to think twice the next time you act on your own personal hatreds.

[Kraklen]

35. OK, and when you support racist monuments...

I sure hope you get caught.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

37. By Who?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. You're missing the point, and I can't tell whether that's deliberate on...

...your part, or just out of complete ignorance.

There is a major distinction between a monument that honors racism, and one that honors the dead.

The soldier statues you see all over the South are monuments honoring the dead Confederate soldiers who for the most part are still buried all over the battlefields of the Civil War. In Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, VA, there is a large 90' tall pyramid built in 1869 that marks the mass burial of some of the Confederate dead from the Battle of Gettysburg and other battles. The bodies were too far decomposed to be able to identify.

I challenge you to find a single monument in the South that honors racism. In fact, I will state flat-out that you will not find any statue honoring the KKK or any other white supremecist group.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

49. I don't

think you could drive the point in with a nail.

[Kraklen]

55. This is a monument that honors racism.

Dead racists to be specific.

You can do the same thing with the swastika, "oh, it's not about anti-semiticism, it's about honoring our proud German ancestry."

Same bullshit.

Sir, the Confederacy was a white supremacist group.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

59. Why

are you so hung up on Swastika's and Germany?

Is there somethng you are failing to mention?

It has been my experience that the guilty dogs bark the loudest.

[Xithras]

64. There's nothing racist about the monument.

There's no confederate flag, no slight against blacks, no yearning proclamations about the south rising again. It's a memorial to DEAD SOLDIERS. There are a thousand more just like it in cemetaries and battlefields across the United States. There is nothing racist about honoring the rank and file soldier who died under the orders of a corrupt government.

And for the record, there ARE memorials to German WWII soldiers across Germany and Europe, and none of them have swastikas. They aren't an affront to Jews or anyone else because they are a memorial to the men who were conscripted into war, not some abstract ideology or their leadership.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Sorry, but you're either misinformed, or....

...woefully ignorant of the facts, or just being deliberately argumentative because that's the way you get your jollies.

[Kraklen]

81. I could say the same to you.

Plus I think you're in denial.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

106. Present some facts

we're waiting.

[Kraklen]

109. Fact: those were opinions.

Geez louise, those were the same opinions you had of me.

:eyes:

[GodHelpUsAll2]

115. Correction

has is past tense. The current would be have.

[fishwax]

60. The Confederacy was a white supremacist group

some might like to imagine them as disinterested in racial matters and only concerned with issues of liberty and state's rights, but then the former mayor of Philadelphia MS recently testified at Killen's trial that the kkk was a peaceful organization that did a lot of good, so people believe all kinds of things.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. And what do you think of Abraham Lincoln's views on Blacks?.....

...I posted this comment earlier in this thread:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3913011&mesg_id=3914155>

[Kraklen]

77. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion...

but during his first election he was essentially indifferent to abolition, and willing to compromise with the South, but by 1863 he was completely committed to ending slavery.

[fishwax]

97. I think it's beside the point

the point being that you were wrong when you said "you will not find any statue honoring the KKK or any other white supremecist group."

[rinsd]

41. Hey when did you stop beating your wife? (nt)

[Charlie Brown]

130. They do have memorial services for Wehrmacht POWs in the US.

If we can honor defenders of Nazi Germany, I don't see why we can't honor fallen Confederate soldiers.

[BikeWriter]

151. You support vandalism of monuments to the dead? Please think about that...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. "We defeated them"? Yes, we had a part to play in defeating Nazi....

...Germany, but the old Soviet Union might have something to say about who carried the bulk of the ground war from the German invasion in 1941 until they took Berlin in 1945.

If you don't want "swastikas in public places", perhaps you should be addressing your concern to the NeoCon Junta, who look more and more like the old Nazis with each passing day.

And just for the record, are you really just a drive-by poster interested in stirring up trouble?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

32. Thank you

I was thinking that same thing. The Russinas surely would not be happy with the spouting of America defeated the Germans.

Kind of reminds me of when the wingnuts went on the French bashing and got all puffed up about how America took the beaches of Normandy and the French owed us for helping them. Well ya think maybe they might like a little mention of helping us during the REVOLUTION?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Agreed. I notice also that the "Freedon Fries" inventor has recently...

...decided to take a different direction in regards to the invasion of Iraq.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

39. Yes

I noticed that too. When I first heard the freedon fries BS I wasn't sure if I should laugh hysterically or cry at the stupidity.

It amazes me that people are so willing to spout of when they have not even the slightest clue as to thier own country's history let alone any other part of the worlds history. Simply mind boggling. We live times where people simply do not care to have the facts before they shout from the roof tops.

[formernaderite]

175. why would we have swastikas?

We never used them. We do show pictures of the swastikas and the SS uniforms in our historical museums, less people forget what the evil we were fighting looked like. I mentioned the Taliban blowing up the ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountain side....an ignorant blow to our shared human history. They blew them up simply because they represented an earlier era when Afghanistan shared a chinese history of Buddhism, which of course reminded them that Islam did not alway reign supreme.

[madeline_con]

210. Hello

can you say Aushwitz? What are memorials like it but reminders of the Nazis?

[monobrau]

139. to be pissed on

The traitors were put down and their lives spared when they surrendered. They deserve no honor beyond that.
And I say that as a southern born American.

[formernaderite]

172. The fact that they built statues to honor them is also a part

of that history. It's best learned from...ignorance of ones history breeds repetition. I think it's important to see the various people we once honored, and some still do. To put your head in the sand and pretend that history didn't exist, or worse try and erase it speaks to one of mans most monumental errors of judgment.

[BluGrl]

170. Anyone that is offended by these monuments...

needs a history lesson. I agree with you. It is part of our history. Trying to erase prevents us from learning from the lessons of that time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. I know that I will be attacked by the PC Police, but there is a segment...

...of the South that views those statues in much the same way most of us view tombstones and cemetery markers. They are, in fact, memorials to the dead soldiers who fought and died while a member of a Confederate military unit. Quite a few of those soldiers were never brought home for burial, but lie instead in unmarked graves near old Civil War battlefields.

95% of those killed in Confederate military units did NOT own slaves, and were fighting to protect their individual farms, crops, and farm animals. When they enlisted, most of the males in their locality enlisted at the same time...they served with brothers, fathers, sons, uncles, cousins, neighbors, etc. They saw the Union forces as invaders, and tried to defend themselves as best they could.

Something that quite a few people don't know, is that about 50,000 to 60,000 Blacks served in Confederate combat units, not just oks and drivers but as front-line troops. Here is a sample webpage on this subject:

Black Confederate Soldiers
<http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/1163/black.html>

QUOTE:

There were Black Confederate soldiers. This is a fact, not fiction. Conservative estimates state that over 50,000 African-Confederates served in the Confederate Army. Many of these men saw combat and participated in it. Some died.

Although the Confederate Congress did not authorize Colored Units in the Confederate Army until 1865, when it was too late, there were many unofficial soldiers overlooked by officers who were desperate to fill the ranks so quickly dwindling. Also, many individual Southern states authorized colored militia units. For example, Alabama in 1862.

Some would ask, "Why would they serve; why would they fight?" They served and fought for the same reasons as their white counterparts. They felt that the South was their home, too. Whether slave or free, each had a stake in the society and each had a home they felt endeared to. For example, many Charleston negroes actually cheered at the possibility that they would be able to shoot Yankees shortly after the outbreak of War. (1)

[left hand man]

62. My Great Great Grand Father George Washington Stewart

NEVER OWNED a slave but enlisted early and survived until he retreated to Resaca Ga.(about 10 miles from where he started)--he died at Resaca and is buried in a common grave in Resaca cemetery----- He died for an idea other than slavery-----ALL COMBATANTS ARE TO BE HONORED!! Be caused they fought for what they believed in

[AX10]

40. Lincoln should have OUTLAWED the display of ALL KKKonfederate...

symbols.

Confederate "Soldiers" if thats what you call them, were nothing more than a bunch of Mohomed Attas! While we in the North believed in freedom and an end to slavery, the Confederate "Terrorists", were fighting to keep people enslaved under the guise of "states rights".

[rinsd]

42. LOL

The North believed in freedom?

Must be why they based the slave ships there, why blacks were killed by the score in draft riots etc etc.

As Americans we have a bloody and sometimes shameful history, to pretend that a region was innocent of anything is laughable at best.

[AX10]

43. It still doesn't justify the display of those horrid symbols.

The Confederate RAG, as I like to call it.

[hiphopnation]

45. ergo

vandalization of confederate symbols (monument to the dead, in this case) is completely justified?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

47. So

You would be equally in favor of vandalizing and demolishing all the civil war monuments in the norh as well?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. Have you bothered to find out what people around the world think of the...

...American flag, the White House, and Herr Busch?

Perhaps you need a little perspective to help you see more clearly. The again, you may be permanently "blind" in that respect.

[rinsd]

53. Okay...

But what does that have to do with statues commemerating Confederate soldiers?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. Well, let's talk about what the Union actually thought about slavery....

...by discussing the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862. Please note that this document did not free any Blacks living in areas currently occupied by Union Armies. It freed instead all Blacks still living in areas under Confederate control. In short, the Emancipation Proclamation was a political document, designed to create problems within the Southern states.

Let's also talk about what Lincoln thought of Blacks and where he thought they should be sent following the Civil War. Ever hear of the country of Liberia and why it was originally founded? Read this link...it might change your outlook as to what Northerners believed in regards to Blacks:

The GOP’s Liberian Connection
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo49.html>

QUOTE:

As for Lincoln, Liberia was his first choice for the eventual deportation (a word he used) of all black people from the U.S. Liberia was created in 1816 by the American Colonization Society (ACS) which purchased land in West Africa for the purpose of "colonization." One of the founders of the ACS was the slave owner Henry Clay, whom Lincoln revered and idolized as "the father of Whig principles" and considered him to be his own political role model. When he died in 1852 Clay had risen to the rank of president of the American Colonization Society. Lincoln was also a member in good standing of the ACS; in 1857 he was appointed as one of the eleven "managers" of the Illinois Colonization Society and, while in the state legislature, he supported the use of Illinois state tax dollars to deport free blacks out of the state (see Webb Garrison, The Lincoln No One Knows, p. 186).

As president, Lincoln tried repeatedly to get "colonization" started. In 1862 he invited a group of free black men into the White House to request that they lead by example and leave the country ("Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men, Washington, D.C.", in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865, Library of America, 1989, pp. 353-357). The men were greeted by the federal Commissioner of Emigration, J. Mitchell. Lincoln then informed them that, at his request, a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress "for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or portion of them, of African descent . . ."

[GodHelpUsAll2]

54. Bet you

won't get any responses to that little tid bit. At least no rational coherent responses.

[rinsd]

56. FYI, Rockwell has an absolute hardon for Lincoln. (nt)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

71. Was any of the information provided in that article incorrect? No.

[Kraklen]

105. Any of it relevant? No.

Was it misleading? Yes. Lincoln's views of African Americans changed completely during the later years of the Civil War.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

149. Oh, right. What Lincoln thought of Blacks, free and slave, had nothing...

..to do with the Civil War?

I thought we were discussing the CAUSES of the Civil War, and what people were thinking at the BEGINNING of that war. You have been plainly stating throughout this thread that slavery was THE cause of the Civil War. What Lincoln thought or didn't think at the END of the war has nothing to do with that, does it?

Answer the following questions without your usual large dose of propaganda...

If Lincoln and the Union were so concerned about slavery, why did they wait until 1862, over a year after the beginning of the war, to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did that document free only those slaves living in territory still occupied by the Confederacy? Why did it not free those slaves living in territory controlled by the Union?

[ISUGRADIA]

168. Yeah, racism in the North, still is...

But there is no denying the Confederacy if successful would have meant possibly decades more of slavery. As it was the South kept blacks in proto-slavery through Jim Crow for decades after the Civil War.

[BikeWriter]

177. Hee hee hee! Doesn't all that pounding yourself on the back hurt?

[QC]

178. Don't worry--he has a diesel-powered back-patter.

They're all the rage among our more sanctimonious brethren here at DU.

[BikeWriter]

181. I believe you. Some of these posts are bizarre! ;-(

[QC]

182. Yeah, this place gets more like Freak Republic every day.

The same style of argument, the same self-righteousness, the same piling-on of anyone who disagrees, the same either/or thinking, the same impotent, sputtering rage, etc.

DU has gone way down from what it once was.

[BikeWriter]

184. I feel welcome on most of the topics, but this division here is...

damned disheartening.

[Tomee450]

195. Yes it is disheartening

especially for me, a black person, to see people here wanting to honor a confederation that was created to ensure the continued enslavement of my ancestors. Very disheartening indeed. The south never would have ended slavery on its own. After reconstruction, it enacted another form of slavery called Jim Crow in which every aspect of black life was controlled by the same people who fought to preserve the older form of slavery. Blacks, just as was the case before the Civil War, were at the mercy of whites and had no rights whatsoever. If they objected to the mistreatment, they could be killed.

[Wcross]

61. I don't agree with the method of protest.

Now the city will have to spend taxpayers money to remove the paint. Whats wrong with protesting and having the offending statue removed using legal means? Don't you think the money spent on cleaning this up would be better spent providing needed services?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

73. I told you

No one coherent response. Why is that people don't seem to be able to discuss/argue a topic other than to say "it's wrong..... because I said so"?

[SouthernDem2004]

67. I thought wearing "black face" was racist.

It comes from Vaudeville when actors would dress up and put on black face to perform.

[mcscajun]

85. Reason and nuance, anyone?

There's a reason that entire libraries could be filled with just the books written on the Civil War in the last hundred years. The roots of the Civil War were incredibly complex, and where slavery was certainly a driving factor, it was not the only one. The reason there are so many, many books on the subject is that historians are still debating the causes (and it's obvious that they're correct in still writing about the effects -- it looks a bit like we're fighting it here in this thread.)

You cannot reduce the Civil War to one evil reason and one noble cause in conflict. There were political, economic, social, and psychological issues, many having their roots in the founding of our country, and the sovereignty of the individual states. It's telling that the regiments that fought on either side were not part of a single unified army, but were organized at the state level and subject to unified command. Slavery wasn't the only thing the war was fought over, not everyone who fought on the Confederate side was a racist demon, and not everyone who fought on the Union side was an unqualified hero.

But many here aren't interested in complexity and nuance; they simply want to beat their particular drum. To those I say, Please: Go read several books about this, then come back and talk.

Meanwhile, vandalism, of whatever property, public or private, is not a progressive value. RW values generally embrace "the ends justify the means", not progressive values. Think about that for a while.

[UdoKier]

110. If California were to secede over Bush's fascism & warmongering...

We would no doubt be called "traitors". After we lost the battle for our independence, we'd be round up and shot as traitors.

The confederacy's primary reason for secession - the preservation of a certain decadent lifestyle enjoyed by people who enslaved other people - as well as the other reasons (states' rights, etc) were far less noble, and yet it's cool to glorify that with statues, etc? When we went to Georgia, we didn't visit Stone Mountain. In spite of the fact that it's an impressive work of art, I would not want to glorify the Confederacy or its leaders to my kids in any way.

[mcscajun]

119. As to your first point, you're probably quite right.

And many in the Confederacy suffered the same fate, even if not legally condoned.

I do not think it is cool to glorify the enslavement of any people. Certainly, Stone Mountain is a glorification of the leaders of the Confederacy; the mundane local statues to honor the ordinary dead are not the same thing.

For the record, I also wouldn't travel to Stone Mountain. Yet, I wouldn't condone some vandal blasting it out of existence, either.

[Tomee450]

113. Absolute nonsense.

The Civil War was fought over slavery no matter how certain people try to spin it. All you have to do is read the Articles of Secession which clearly state that it was because of slavery that the south was fighting. The southerners wanted to maintain the right to own other human beings and wanted that right extended to other states as well. The Confederacy was evil and those soldiers who fought for it were also evil for they fought to maintain a system that denied basic human rights to millions of people. It was a system that sold off family members, a system in which black women were raped, runaway slaves killed or maimed, a system in which many blacks never reached old age. When the slave remains were discovered in New York City, an examination revealed that they had suffered at hard labor and died young. Slavery was a brutal,evil system and the Confederacy was formed to maintain it. It's sad that even here on a progressive board we find people engaging in revisionist history in an attempt to support their wish to honor something as evil as the Confederacy. If the south had won, my ancestors would have remained in bondage for many more years. The Confederacy lost and I thank God it did.

[mcscajun]

116. You miss my point entirely.

I am not a Confederacy apologist, I think slavery was the greatest evil ever perpetrated by this country, followed by the exploitation and near-extermination of the native peoples.

I do not romanticize either slavery or the Confederacy. Not every soldier, then as now, either fully understands or fully supports what he is fighting for. I condemn no one in the ranks as many do here.

I'm not spinning anything. I merely attempt to offer some perspective. I wish others might consider widening theirs, is all.

The main point here is still that vandalism is always wrong.

[Charlie Brown]

142. Well said

Many people on this thread seem to think that every Confederate infantryman was either a plantation owner or a slave-trafficer. Most were just ordinary farmers and laborers who probably couldn't even afford a slave. Quite a few were drafted. The applause that these delinquent vandalizers are getting here is disheartening.

[kliljedahl]

89. Couple sticks of dynamite oughta do it.

Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Fleshdancer]

92. Perhaps I'm not Southern enough....

I don't know. I'm a born and raised Texan and yet I don't understand the whole "I think the Civil War is still sensitive to a segment of the South" thing. Am I just too southwestern to understand this particular segment in the south? Are they all tucked away in South Carolina or Mississippi where I can't see them?

We lost. I'm over it. I had ancestors on both sides and I feel no anger either way. I don't know why people reenact the battles and I don't know why the confederate flag is still flown for some. I love the South, but can't my identity be about something other than this damn war? I can think of hundreds of other ways to symbolize the South. :shrug:

[Logansquare]

111. Amen, there's plenty of Southern culture that is worth defending

like the food, the music, the colorful stories and people, so why do a (I believe)minority of southerners seem to need to cling to the Confederacy? It's important to remember, but its memory should evoke distaste, not pride.

[Fleshdancer]

114. Thank God I'm not the only one who thinks so

I read stories like this and I start to think, "am I somehow disconnected with the Southerners around me??" from all my travels throughout the South, most of the people I meet could easily think of more meaningful ways to associate our heritage. I'm just trying to figure out exactly who here in the South feels so damn connected to the confederacy.

[tx_dem41]

120. That's the point that seemingly few DUers want to believe....

They just want to stereotype all Southerners as one thing. Having lived in the Deep South and Texas all my life, I meet very very few people who are "still fighting the Civil War". Actually, I can't even remember the last time.

But let those DUers feel what they want to feel. They need these little biases (bigotries?) to get them through the day, I guess.

[HeeBGBz]

125. From my experience

It's always the Northerners who bring up the subject of the war and the confederacy. Like its a form of entertainment to try to stir shit up.

[tx_dem41]

126. My point exactly. Bullies always need someone to feel superior to.

And, the DU, like the world, is full of them, sadly.

[UdoKier]

196. I'm a Texas native. My great-granddad was a KKK supporter.

My grandma used to tell me when I was a kid how they treated the slaves so well, and how "nigras were better off under slavery" and how after the war the Union let them run wild and rape all the little girls etc, and that's why they needed the Klan to keep all the good little white girls safe.

Even as a little kid, I knew my grandma was full of shit on this issue, and I just ignored here idiotic opinions on the matter. I still loved her very much, she was a wonderful grandma otherwise.


just so you know, it's not a "yankee" who started this up...

[QC]

147. The only place I ever encounter people still fighting the Civil War is DU.

And, interestingly enough, they're almost always "blue state" types complaining about how the rest of us are--you guess it--still fighting the Civil War.

[BikeWriter]

152. Amen!

[HeeBGBz]

156. You noticed that too?

It's one of the most subversive aspects of divisiveness that I've seen on this site. By far the most effective in splitting us apart.

[UdoKier]

197. Again, I'm a Texan.

And I think confederacy symbols are disgusting.

[HeeBGBz]

101. Fuck that. I want all reminders of the rape of native American culture

Removed from our cultural reference.

Start with Mt Rushmore. Remove those big head aggressors off sacred ground.

[UdoKier]

108. If it glorifies or distorts Indian genocide, it should be torn down

Mt. Rushmore is not specifically meant to commemorate indian genocide.

A memorial to confederate war dead is one thing. To commemorate their "heroism" or "glory" is another. At this point, there are few people left to mourn confederate war dead, anyway.

[HeeBGBz]

117. It glorifies the leadership that destroyed a way of life

It smiles Big Brother reminders of racist domination down upon the land.

Mt. Rushmore is a Shrine of HYPOCRISY!


"The four faces carved on stolen Indian lands supposedly represent the four most notable presidents of the United States. With their ideals and values defined through the study of Iroquois society, America's founding fathers are indebted to the Lakota and all Indian peoples for their mere existence. But, in the Sacred Black Hills (our church, our synagogue, our temple) those presidents carved on that granite rock were more than mere democratic deviants.

The founding fathers on that rock shared common characteristics. All four valued white supremacy and promoted the extirpation of Indian society. The United States' founding fathers were staunchly anti-Indian advocates in that at one time or another, all four provided for genocide against Indian peoples of this hemisphere."

[UdoKier]

122. All I can say is good luck with that...

Getting people to overlook the overwhelmingly positive attributes of Washington, Jefferson & Lincoln (I personally have little admiration for Teddy Roosevelt) will be a pretty tough sell, but the Lakota make some good points there...

[HeeBGBz]

124. Just making a point

There's a lot of symbols of ugly in this country. Are we gonna tear down all the symbols or use them to reflect on how we don't want to be?

[UdoKier]

129. I know, and I got your point.

I just think that a clear distinction can be drawn between the utterly corrupt values the confederacy and the values that the United States supposedly represents (and hopefully really will someday)

I'm not sure whether the US is beyond redemption at this point, but I'm pretty sure that the Confederacy is.

[HeeBGBz]

154. The confederacy is history

Too bad people can't see it that way. It's over. Monuments are just reflections of a past. If you destroy them, you destroy any discussions spawned by their existence.

You can't hide all the ugly of our past, but you can learn from it.

[Tomee450]

134. It's unfortunate that some want to

honor something as terrible as the confederacy. The only thing comparable to slavery is the Holocaust. Slavery was uniquely evil in that it destroyed the lives of millions of people. I cannot understand why you and others would want to honor something so bad. Many African American have heard of the terrible horrors of slavery from the accounts of their ancestors passed down through generations. The Confederacy deserves no honor. If it had won, slavery would have continued and would have spread to other parts of the country. Millions of blacks would have remained in bondage without hope. I cannot understand why people would honor evil. It's beyond me.

[HeeBGBz]

153. Why do you honor those who slaughtered a nation?

Whose greed destroyed the culture of the original inhabitants of this nation?

There's lots of ugly around here. Don't think you're immune.

[Tomee450]

198. You are another trying to change the subject. This

discussion is not about the Native Americans who I agree suffered terribly. The fact is that millions died during the slave trade. Millions had their families broken up, were forced to worked long hours, were given poor food and clothing. They often died young. Slavery was uniquely evil and the confederation that was formed to preserve it should not be honored for it too, was evil. It's unfortunate that you and others wish to deny the brutality meted out to millions of people who were brought here in chains. You wish to honor those involved in the cruelty, those who fought to preserve it. That is most unfortunate.

[Logansquare]

112. Is Mt. Rushmore in the Black Hills?

That is a pretty ugly thing to plant there.

[HeeBGBz]

121. Yes, on land stolen from the Lakota

"In 1877, the Manypenny Commission Treaty agreement was made in total violation of Article 12 of the 1868 Treaty earlier declaring 3/4 majority vote required in order to further cede any portions of lands to the U.S. In 1980, the U.S. awarded monetary compensation of the land theft. The blatant violations of their own laws against Lakota peoples were what they called "dishonorable dealings" in the history of America. The Lakota Treaty Advocates and Supporters nationwide unilaterally rejected the money. Instead, the desire to achieve the return of stolen lands grew stronger. The land has never been legally sold. Later came the episode with a millionaire businessman from California who promised to get the lands returned to the Lakota in exchange for a status as "Special Chief". Turned out he was unable to prove his ancestry. Coincidentally, his action struck a major blow at the solidarity of the Lakota Treaty advocates, an issue that needs to be addressed now."


Lakota Student Alliance

[CatWoman]

140. LOLOLOL

THAT'S MY HOME TOWN!!!!

To gain some insight on Portsmouth, Virginia, read "Makes Me Wanna Holler" by Nathan McCall.

I grew up with him.

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/mccall.htm

[cynatnite]

157. Plain and simple...It's Vandalism

You don't have to like the statue, but it's not their property to deface. They broke the law and if caught...they should be punished.

I don't get why people should be glad something is defaced.

[really annoyed]

160. Agree

You might not like the statue, but that doesn't give you a right to break the law to protest against it.

[hiphopnation]

186. S'cuse me, sir.

...or ma'am.

I'm with the DU logic police. We've been informed that you've posted something that makes too much sense. You're gonna have to come with me...

edit: ma'am LOL! :-)

[WLKjr]

167. This vandalisim is un-called for

and it was wrong. These are historical markers, wether or not they are confederate or union. period.


Let us never forget our own history.

[6000eliot]

199. That monument is a disgrace

It should be knocked down, not "defaced."

[LibDemAlways]

200. I'm just curious if VA Sen. George Allen

will issue a statement about this. He knows a thing or two about racially tinged vandalism.

[madeline_con]

201. "They are actually planning to squander ...

$80,000 on a restoration for this thing"

Boy are they getting hosed. I'l get a gallon of paint remover and do it for half that!

I agree it's vandalism, though. Not cool.

Like it or not, it's part of our heritage. Defacing it is like removing the cig from Bogie's mouth for a stamp. Dumb.

[hemp_not_war]

212. that is disgusting

Times like this I realize the far left is no different then the far right, I am a moderate I suppose.

[The Magistrate]

222. Locking

Deliberately imflammatory at the start, and has not improved with age....