And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....

[phill4paul]

...almost like it was planned. Move the narrative away from Southern and historic heritage and link it to neo-Nazi's and now there will be no stopping it.
Nashville, Lexington, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Gainseville.




Officials in several states are calling for the removal of public monuments that have become controversial symbols of the Confederacy, driven by the national outcry over the violence in Charlottesville, Va., that erupted on Saturday during a protest organized by white nationalists.

In Nashville on Monday, protesters at the state Capitol demanded the removal of a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest that sits between the Statehouse and Senate chambers, The Tennessean reported. Forrest, a Confederate general and KKK leader, was involved in an 1864 massacre of black soldiers.

Top Tennessee Democrats asked for its removal in 2015. But the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act, passed in 2016, has made the process more difficult.

Nashville is also home to another statue of Forrest that has been described as “terrifying,” with eyes that glow “like a flesh-eating zombie on bath salts,” as a Washington Post reporter once wrote. Despite efforts to remove it, the statue still stands.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE


The Statue at the Center of Charlottesville’s Storm AUG. 13, 2017

Era Ends as South Carolina Lowers Confederate Flag JULY 10, 2015

Calls to Drop Confederate Emblems Spread Nationwide JUNE 23, 2015
Anna Lopez Brosche, president of the Jacksonville City Council in Florida, said in a statement on Monday that she is asking the city to take an inventory of all Confederate symbols on public property, and to “develop an appropriate plan of action” to relocate them to places like museums and education institutions.

“It is important to never forget the history of our great city; and, these monuments, memorials, and markers represent a time in our history that caused pain to so many,” she said Monday.

In Maryland, a statue of the former Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, which sits in front of the Statehouse, has drawn ire. Michael E. Busch the House speaker, told The Baltimore Sun on Monday that “it’s the appropriate time to remove it.” Taney is best known for ruling against Dred Scott in 1857, decreeing that blacks couldn’t claim United States citizenship, and therefore couldn’t sue in federal court.

Photo

The mayor of Lexington, Jim Gray, said he would speed up a proposal to remove two Confederate monuments from the city’s former courthouse. Credit Chris Wilson for The New York Times
Mayor Jim Gray of Lexington, Ky., said in a statement on Saturday that plans to move two statues of Confederate figures from the grounds of the former courthouse there were in place before the violence in Charlottesville, in which a 32-year-old woman was killed and at least 34 others were injured. He said what happened there “accelerated the announcement I intended to make next week.”

“We have thoroughly examined this issue, and heard from many of our citizens,” he said.

The statues in question are of John Hunt Morgan, a Confederate general, and John C. Breckinridge, the 14th vice president of the United States who also served as the Confederate secretary of war.

The former courthouse, which has not been used for several years, is scheduled to reopen as a visitors center next year. The proposal under consideration would move the statues to a city park, Veterans Park, according to The Lexington Herald-Leader.

Mr. Gray said the next step was to ask the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council to support a petition to the Kentucky Military Heritage Commission, which he said was a required step in the process. “Details to come,” he said.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-kentucky.html

[AngryCanadian]

Bye Bye History. Whats next the removal of Historical monuments in Europe to?

[tod evans]

The Parthenon is offensive.

Do you know how many slaves the Greeks had?

[phill4paul]

When I'm right, I'm right.


Protesters in Durham, N.C. tear down a large Confederate memorial statue

Call it a response to the weekend violence in Charlottesville, Virginia

Protesters in North Carolina posted a video Monday of their tearing down a Confederate memorial, calling it a response to the weekend violence in Charlottesville.

The clip shows a group of at least several dozen in Durham pulling down a statue in front of the local government building.
They can be heard yelling “No KKK! No fascist USA! No Trump!” until cheers break out as the statue atop the memorial gets pulled down.

Several protesters can be seen kicking the statue. There is no indication in the video that any police officers or other officials are trying to stop the public vandalism.

Video at site:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/14/durham-nc-protesters-topple-confederate-memorial-s/

Will update when a youtube is posted.

[juleswin]

I guess Americans are uniting alright. Uniting to fight against the Nazis and the confederate statues they love so much. Self awareness is a skill that is most lacking with these sort of group.

Good job Richard Spencer, someone should follow him and maybe they would find him going to collecting his cheque at the Langley, VA office :wink: :wink:

[EBounding]

I think statues in general are weird. These statues aren't history--they're decorations. Put them in a museum and fund them privately. What if they took down the Lincoln memorial? Would anyone here care?

[FunkBuddha]

When I'm right, I'm right.



Video at site:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/14/durham-nc-protesters-topple-confederate-memorial-s/

Will update when a youtube is posted.

So now what happens when the other side tears down a statue of MLK or anyone else for that matter? Do they get arrested and charged with vandalism? If so, this will only polarize people more as it becomes more and more apparent that there is a protected class that is above the law. This was a foolish act by both the protesters and the police.

[Antischism]

Hard to care about them taking down monuments on public land that are emblematic of white supremacy and immortalize old, dead racists. They can be preserved in privately owned locations for historical reasons just like we preserve Nazi artifacts.

[nikcers]

I think statues in general are weird. These statues aren't history--they're decorations. Put them in a museum and fund them privately. What if they took down the Lincoln memorial? Would anyone here care?

muh culture

[Swordsmyth]

Hard to care about them taking down monuments on public land that are emblematic of white supremacy and immortalize old, dead racists. They can be preserved in privately owned locations for historical reasons just like we preserve Nazi artifacts.
You are showing your ignorance YANKEE.

[Swordsmyth]

I think statues in general are weird. These statues aren't history--they're decorations. Put them in a museum and fund them privately. What if they took down the Lincoln memorial? Would anyone here care?
Anyone with a brain would cheer, Lincoln was a tyrant.

[tod evans]

Hard to care about them taking down monuments on public land that are emblematic of white supremacy and immortalize old, dead racists. They can be preserved in privately owned locations for historical reasons just like we preserve Nazi artifacts.

So can 'civil rights' memorabilia...

[Antischism]

So can 'civil rights' memorabilia...

Sure, the difference being that one serves to empower a group of people who were historically subjugated and dehumanized, while the other is a living reminder of past horrors. Given the context, I'd say it's probably less of a pressing matter to take down, say, an MLK statue. Not that I care for statues (or the flag for that matter), but it's pretty easy to understand why monuments that symbolize slavery and white supremacy would draw more ire than a statue of a man who preached racial equality.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure, the difference being that one serves to empower a group of people who were historically subjugated and dehumanized, while the other is a living reminder of past horrors. Given the context, I'd say it's probably less of a pressing matter to take down, say, an MLK statue. Not that I care for statues (or the flag for that matter), but it's pretty easy to understand why monuments that symbolize slavery and white supremacy would draw more ire than a statue of a man who preached racial equality.
They symbolize no such thing AntiFA, if you want to educate yourself I suggest you start with these:

From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war)
Causes of Southern Seccession- the Upper South (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512620-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Upper-South)
Causes of Southern Seccession- the Cotton States (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States)

[FunkBuddha]

If the public demands that they be removed through election of some sort, then I'm Ok with them being removed. Tearing them down is vandalism.

On a side note, my grandmother's first cousin made the Nathan Bedford Forrest bust in Nashville. I was going through some of the newspaper clippings she had kept and found an article about it less than a month ago.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hard to care about them taking down monuments on public land that are emblematic of white supremacy and immortalize old, dead racists. They can be preserved in privately owned locations for historical reasons just like we preserve Nazi artifacts.
https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s403x403/20840837_1432180456876718_2715933354110122998_n.jp g?oh=a74c163fd6fcbe31e781ba69c15fc494&oe=5A292CB0

[Noob]

Mount Rushmore is probably on the list.

[Anti Federalist]

Hard to care about them taking down monuments on public land that are emblematic of white supremacy and immortalize old, dead racists. They can be preserved in privately owned locations for historical reasons just like we preserve Nazi artifacts.

They immortalized an effort to walk away from this government.

[juleswin]

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s403x403/20840837_1432180456876718_2715933354110122998_n.jp g?oh=a74c163fd6fcbe31e781ba69c15fc494&oe=5A292CB0

You do know "1984" is a work of fiction. But even if it was non fiction, the state cannot destroy/rewrite every book, only some statues are being removed, dates cannot be altered because there are just too many places the with dates of events recorded. The totalitarian world described in 1984 is not what we are facing where removing a statues somehow removes the information about Robert Lee.

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.

[Anti Federalist]

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.

Once all human records are in "the cloud", re writing history and sending things permanently down the memory, will be a snap.

[Swordsmyth]

You do know "1984" is a work of fiction. But even if it was non fiction, the state cannot destroy/rewrite every book, only some statues are being removed, dates cannot be altered because there are just too many places the with dates of events recorded. The totalitarian world described in 1984 is not what we are facing where removing a statues somehow removes the information about Robert Lee.

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.
It can happen here, if the left gains unfettered control of the reigns of government for a long enough time they will indulge their wildest fantasies, we are all that stops them.

[Antischism]

They immortalized an effort to walk away from this government.

To preserve their slave economy. You can't disentangle the two. You can champion secession without glorifying old racists.

[heavenlyboy34]

You do know "1984" is a work of fiction. But even if it was non fiction, the state cannot destroy/rewrite every book, only some statues are being removed, dates cannot be altered because there are just too many places the with dates of events recorded. The totalitarian world described in 1984 is not what we are facing where removing a statues somehow removes the information about Robert Lee.

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.
Yes, but like many pieces of art, it illustrates a certain truth.There is no denying that there are and always have been people who want to alter or wash historical facts from mass consciousness. (John Taylor Gatto talks about this inhis books and lectures on public schooling. He who controls people's understandingof the past can manipulate how they think about the present andfuture.

[Swordsmyth]

To preserve their slave economy. You can't disentangle the two.
Bunk, I see you didn't read the posts I suggested.

[juleswin]

Once all human records are in "the cloud", re writing history and sending things permanently down the memory, will be a snap.

The proliferation of flash drives and external hard drives assures me that people are still storing their data in hardware. I have the videos of just about every conspiracy theory videos I like, copies of all my pics, still keep hard copy books and I am sure I am not the only person doing this.

At this point in time, it would be almost impossible for the state to change dates of important events. This is because all human record(99% sure of this) will never be stored in the clouds.

[heavenlyboy34]

To preserve their slave economy. You can't disentangle the two.
Among other things. It was an agrarian economy at the time. As even Ron Paul points out, slavery would've died out with automation like it did everywhere else in the first world.

[jllundqu]

They will march a path right to Monticello and Mt. Vernon... simply because they were 'white slave owners'.

[Slave Mentality]

You do know "1984" is a work of fiction. But even if it was non fiction, the state cannot destroy/rewrite every book, only some statues are being removed, dates cannot be altered because there are just too many places the with dates of events recorded. The totalitarian world described in 1984 is not what we are facing where removing a statues somehow removes the information about Robert Lee.

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.


Counterpoint: The Indian Wars

[heavenlyboy34]

It can happen here, if the left gains unfettered control of the reigns of government for a long enough time they will indulge their wildest fantasies, we are all that stops them.
+rep. :( Kurwa

[phill4paul]

They will march a path right to Monticello and Mt. Vernon... simply because they were 'white slave owners'.

That's the end game. The Constitution was a racist document therefore it is illegitimate. Bring on full scale Democracy. Death to the Republic.

[juleswin]

Yes, but like many pieces of art, it illustrates a certain truth.There is no denying that there are and always have been people who want to alter or wash historical facts from mass consciousness. (John Taylor Gatto talks about this inhis books and lectures on public schooling. He who controls people's understandingof the past can manipulate how they think about the present andfuture.

The point is that they've already altered the history behind the man, everybody but a small fringe minority still believe the civil war was about something else other than slavery. They achieved this without changing any dates or removing any statues. Think WWII and even a smaller minority believe Hitler did not gas the jews. My point is that the state can achieve all of this without ever moving monuments.

I think this whole incident is their way of painting the non establishment movement on the right as neo Nazis.

[Antischism]

Among other things. It was an agrarian economy at the time. As even Ron Paul points out, slavery would've died out with automation like it did everywhere else in the first world.

Not only does that argument rely on hindsight, but it's patently absurd to suggest it would have been preferable for slaves to wait in the hopes that their masters would one day be kind enough to let them go. This also ignores the fact that a commercially viable cotton-harvesting machine wasn't available until after World War II.

[tod evans]

If the slaves of years gone by are important to you then gather money and build them a fucking monument.

Leave other peoples monuments alone.

[Anti Federalist]

To preserve their slave economy. You can't disentangle the two. You can champion secession without glorifying old racists.

It was the concepts and philosophy and religion of white westerners that provided the impetus to abolish slavery.

[Swordsmyth]

Not only does that argument rely on hindsight, but it's patently absurd to suggest it would have been preferable for slaves to wait in the hopes that their masters would one day be kind enough to let them go. This also ignores the fact that a commercially viable cotton-harvesting machine wasn't available until after World War II.
The abolition movement started in the south, the south was already on the way to ending slavery peacefully, Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery until he needed a propaganda boost for the war effort.

[Anti Federalist]

This is because all human record(99% sure of this) will never be stored in the clouds.

You know how many times over my life I have heard "that will never happen", especially when it comes to political oppression or government control or technological horrors?

Enough to dismiss anybody who says it, out of hand.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not only does that argument rely on hindsight, but it's patently absurd to suggest it would have been preferable for slaves to wait in the hopes that their masters would one day be kind enough to let them go. This also ignores the fact that a commercially viable cotton-harvesting machine wasn't available until after World War II.
Preferableto a bloody invasion? Yes. A better alternative, if the goal reallywas an immediate end to slavery would've been to buy all the slaves and emancipate them.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Funny name for someone being so inflammatory and divisive here. . .

thought said he was outta here already. . .

[donnay]

You do know "1984" is a work of fiction. But even if it was non fiction, the state cannot destroy/rewrite every book, only some statues are being removed, dates cannot be altered because there are just too many places the with dates of events recorded. The totalitarian world described in 1984 is not what we are facing where removing a statues somehow removes the information about Robert Lee.

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.

It's the globalists playbook.

[jllundqu]

That's the end game. The Constitution was a racist document therefore it is illegitimate. Bring on full scale Democracy. Death to the Republic.

BRING. IT. ON.

One side has 200 million guns, the other side doesn't know which restroom to use.

[juleswin]

It can happen here, if the left gains unfettered control of the reigns of government for a long enough time they will indulge their wildest fantasies, we are all that stops them.

I try not to say never to any scenario happening but how likely is it that the left would get in govt and start rewriting history in the way described in 1984? I say very small. But lemme just talk about this whole left v right talk. To tell you the truth, I get very depressed whenever I hear anyone on this site still believing that there is a meaningful difference between the two sides. Its the sort of feeling you get when playing a game of basketball and then realizing that your team mate have no idea how to score.

You set yourself up for perpetual failure if you haven't realized at this point that the left and right are working together and both attack different aspects of your freedom.

[Swordsmyth]

I try not to say never to any scenario happening but how likely is it that the left would get in govt and start rewriting history in the way described in 1984? I say very small. But lemme just talk about this whole left v right talk. To tell you the truth, I get very depressed whenever I hear anyone on this site still believing that there is a meaningful difference between the two sides. Its the sort of feeling you get when playing a game of basketball and then realizing that your team mate have no idea how to score.

You set yourself up for perpetual failure if you haven't realized at this point that the left and right are working together and both attack different aspects of your freedom.
The false right IS bad, but the left is worse and there are NO good leftists.

[enhanced_deficit]

This should not be allowed to turn in statue wars between Alt-Right and Alt-Left or Ctrl-Right and Ctrl-Left etc. Sanctity of freedom of speech for all parties should be observed when proper permits have been obtained for democratic protests.

Also in the past there had been fakenews mixed with real news, has this been confirmed from reliable sources?



Fakenews:

May 18, 2017While it is true the Davis statue was removed last week, a decision that was met with both support and backlash, it is not being replaced with an Obama monument. The bronze Obama statue pictured in the fake news report is real but is not being placed anywhere in New Orleans. The statue, which was also at the center of a fake Oval Office (http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/president-barack-obama-placing-life-size-bronze-statue-oval-office-fake-news-01759849) story, is actually located in Puerto Rico.
image: http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FoxNewsFake.jpg
http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FoxNewsFake.jpg
Read more at http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/barack-obama-tribute-replacing-statue-confederate-leader-jefferson-davis-political-satire-01846210





Realnews:

Barack Obama statue removed from Jakarta park after protests

Indonesian authorities removed a statue of President Barack Obama from a park in the capital Jakarta due to a public backlash when it was erected.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01578/obamaStatue_1578594c.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7242791/Barack-Obama-statue-removed-from-Jakarta-park-after-protests.html

[juleswin]

The false right IS bad, but the left is worse and there are NO good leftists.

You know leftist also believe that Obama is false left and some even believe that Bernie Sanders too is false left. At the moment, the false right and left are the only games in town and those two work together to screw us all. Btw, I am including Clinton loving Trump as part of the false right.

[Anti Federalist]

To tell you the truth, I get very depressed whenever I hear anyone on this site still believing that there is a meaningful difference between the two sides.

There is a difference, and it is significant and substantial.


There's no rational understanding to be had.

Look at left wing SJWs and feminists supporting Islamic Sharia law.

That's why I find the left wing much more dangerous than the "right".

The "right" in this case wants to survive and flourish and they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are being hamstrung and forced out and marginalized and becoming unwelcome strangers in their own land, all at the hands of nefarious machinations, Joos, or the TPTB. And on that last point, TPTB, they may very well be correct.

The left, however, are truly unhinged, in that they hate themselves even more than they hate the "right".

From abortion to infanticide to Malthusian doomsday-ism propagated by global warming nonsense, these people are a multi million strong, self loathing, suicidal death cult, tens of millions of latter day Jim Jones followers, ready, willing and eager to expand death on all fronts, because they see themselves as a virus, a cancer, a plague on Mother Earth.

But they see you and me as even more of a threat.

And make no mistake, if they ever come to full power, they will make damn sure to take as many of us with them as they can.

I used to not believe that, that maybe we could "reach out" and found common cause with the left, Occupy and so on...

I no longer think that.

[Swordsmyth]

You know leftist also believe that Obama is false left and some even believe that Bernie Sanders too is false left. At the moment, the false right and left are the only games in town and those two work together to screw us all. Btw, I am including Clinton loving Trump as part of the false right.
There are good people on the right, there are none on the left.
The right is right the left is wrong,the false right is wrong the false left is worse.

[acptulsa]

But even if it was non fiction, the state cannot destroy/rewrite every book...

This caused me to go looking for something on Sinclair Lewis' book It Can't Happen Here. And not just because of the irony he intended in his title, but because he was right to say it can happen here. It is happening here. The techniques he outlined are being used here now. And then I discovered the book is being held up by, well, apparently everyone as a way to examine the rise of Trump.

Those techniques are being used by 'The Left' just as much as by everyone else. The only reasons some might find it has more to resemblance to 'The Right' are purely superficial. The form of the movement in the book might resemble Trump and his minions more, but the substance, the techniques, the nature of the manipulation applies equally to both of these artificially created 'sides'.


But lemme just talk about this whole left v right talk. To tell you the truth, I get very depressed whenever I hear anyone on this site still believing that there is a meaningful difference between the two sides. Its the sort of feeling you get when playing a game of basketball and then realizing that your team mate have no idea how to score.

You set yourself up for perpetual failure if you haven't realized at this point that the left and right are working together and both attack different aspects of your freedom.

This. And more to the point, 'Left' and 'Right' are being used to keep us at each others' throats over trivialities, giving the real 'Them' room to rob the real 'Us' with complete impunity.


The false right IS bad, but the left is worse and there are NO good leftists.

Do you know any? You're caught up in the trivialities, too. You refuse to associate with any liberals, you judge and categorize them out of hand, and that's how they divide us from potential allies.

And conquer us.

The 'Left' and the 'Right' are exactly the same in one respect. They both have people who think their philosophy is genuinely the way to preserve, protect and defend individual rights, they both have people who are would-be tinpot dictators and make useful idiots, they both contain arrogant fools, and their leaders are all in cahoots with each other and playing us.

There are good leftists. No one points cameras at them. Their posts get scrubbed from Fedbook, and their vids get pulled from YouBoobToob. Your friends dismiss them out of hand, and encourage you to not even talk to them. Your neighbors may be them, but who talks to their neighbors any more when there's a TV show coming on? Some can be found at church, but who goes to church any more--or hangs around after the service and misses the early NFL game kickoff? They even get banned from this site, where they used to be welcome because they are reasonable, due to pressure from a vocal minority.

Divided and conquered--and bragging about it.


The right is right the left is wrong,the false right is wrong the false left is worse.

Being right does not make a person good, and being wrong does not make a person bad. Indeed, being wrong does not even guarantee a person is a useful idiot, and being right does not even guarantee a person is not a useful idiot.

[Swordsmyth]

This caused me to go looking for something on Sinclair Lewis' book It Can't Happen Here. And not just because of the irony he intended in his title, but because he was right to say it can happen here. It is happening here. The techniques he outlined are being used here now. And then I discovered the book is being held up by, well, apparently everyone as a way to examine the rise of Trump.

Those techniques are being used by 'The Left' just as much as by everyone else. The only reasons some might find it has more to resemblance to 'The Right' are purely superficial. The form of the movement in the book might resemble Trump and his minions more, but the substance, the techniques, the nature of the manipulation applies equally to both of these artificially created 'sides'.



This. And more to the point, 'Left' and 'Right' are being used to keep us at each others' throats over trivialities, giving the real 'Them' room to rob the real 'Us' with complete impunity.



Do you know any? You're caught up in the trivialities, too. You refuse to associate with any liberals, you judge and categorize them out of hand, and that's how they divide us from potential allies.

And conquer us.

The 'Left' and the 'Right' are exactly the same in one respect. They both have people who think their philosophy is genuinely the way to preserve, protect and defend individual rights, they both have people who are would-be tinpot dictators and make useful idiots, they both contain arrogant fools, and their leaders are all in cahoots with each other and playing us.

There are good leftists. No one points cameras at them. Their posts get scrubbed from Fedbook, and their vids get pulled from YouBoobToob. Your friends dismiss them out of hand, and encourage you to not even talk to them. Your neighbors may be them, but who talks to their neighbors any more when there's a TV show coming on? Some can be found at church, but who goes to church any more--or hangs around after the service and misses the early NFL game kickoff? They even get banned from this site, where they used to be welcome because they are reasonable, due to pressure from a vocal minority.

Divided and conquered--and bragging about it.
By definition the left wants government to take my money and control me, there are no good leftists.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

This should not be allowed to turn in statue wars between Alt-Right and Alt-Left or Ctrl-Right and Ctrl-Left etc. Sanctity of freedom of speech for all parties should be observed when proper permits have been obtained for democratic protests.

Also in the past there had been fakenews mixed with real news, has this been confirmed from reliable sources?



Fakenews:

May 18, 2017While it is true the Davis statue was removed last week, a decision that was met with both support and backlash, it is not being replaced with an Obama monument. The bronze Obama statue pictured in the fake news report is real but is not being placed anywhere in New Orleans. The statue, which was also at the center of a fake Oval Office (http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/president-barack-obama-placing-life-size-bronze-statue-oval-office-fake-news-01759849) story, is actually located in Puerto Rico.
image: http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FoxNewsFake.jpg
http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FoxNewsFake.jpg
Read more at http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/barack-obama-tribute-replacing-statue-confederate-leader-jefferson-davis-political-satire-01846210





Realnews:

Barack Obama statue removed from Jakarta park after protests

Indonesian authorities removed a statue of President Barack Obama from a park in the capital Jakarta due to a public backlash when it was erected.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01578/obamaStatue_1578594c.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7242791/Barack-Obama-statue-removed-from-Jakarta-park-after-protests.html

you mean his boys don't got his back in Java ?

[acptulsa]

By definition the left wants government to take my money and control me, there are no good leftists.

There are those of 'The Left' who never knew a time when 'The Right' wasn't taking people's home on the pretext that they, or their children, or their grandchildren, were drug dealers, and trying to control they way people talked about their splendid little wars. Are they on 'The Left' to control you and take your money, or are they merely trying to resist the drug warriors and neocons?

Go find them and actually talk to them, and find out. Until you do, you won't know who all your potential allies are, and you won't gain a real, deep down, instinctive understanding of how our real enemies are dividing and conquering us.

[juleswin]

There is a difference, and it is significant and substantial.I will tell you right now that I am not afraid of the SJWs or feminists or sharia law. Those issues are no where near the top of my worry list.

As for the right just wanting to survive, thrives and being hamstrung my TPTB, joos etc, I call BS on it. These people are TPTB and most of the time work with the zionists. Also, I see nobody supporting infanticide other than the people bombing villages filled with children in the middle east and North Africa. I have no problem with abortion, if anything I support abortion.

As for things like global warming and universal health care, you have to realize that some of these policies came out of the right or people the right hold in high regard. Churchill was a bigger supporter of the NHS and Thatcher was the first politician to make global warming a global issue.


“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear: Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the sane way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion….Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
Winston Churchill


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA

So in my opinion, I don't see any good reason to side with one over the other. At best, I see both sides playing good cop, bad cop game on me and I refuse to side with one over the other.

[Swordsmyth]

There are those of 'The Left' who never knew a time when 'The Right' wasn't taking people's home on the pretext that they, or their children, or their grandchildren, were drug dealers, and trying to control they way people talked about their splendid little wars. Are they on 'The Left' to control you and take your money, or are they merely trying to resist the drug warriors and neocons?

Go find them and actually talk to them, and find out. Until you do, you won't know who all your potential allies are, and you won't gain a real, deep down, instinctive understanding of how our real enemies are dividing and conquering us.
Every leftist I have known or heard of wants more taxes and regulations, they may be right on a few issues that we are right on but they are fundamentally anti-liberty, they just care about their own pet issues when the big government they built gets in their way.

[Anti Federalist]

I will tell you right now that I am not afraid of the SJWs or feminists or sharia law. Those issues are no where near the top of my worry list.

You missed my point utterly, if that's what you took away from my post.

But, whatever.


As for the right just wanting to survive, thrives and being hamstrung my TPTB, joos etc, I call BS on it. These people are TPTB and most of the time work with the zionists.

Zuh? They work for zionists?

AcpTulsa made a valid point in a previous post about "getting out and talking to people".

I have, and I'm here to tell you these people are real, and, to paraphrase a point made months ago, a West Virginia coal miner, out of work for two years, living in a trailer house and driving a 25 year old truck, is getting pretty fed up at being lectured about his "white privilege" by a Harvard educated black woman making $250,000 a year as a corporate "diversity officer".


Also, I see nobody supporting infanticide

Search is your friend.

More Ethicists Come Out in Support of Infanticide

https://catholicmoraltheology.com/more-ethicists-come-out-in-support-of-infanticide/


I have no problem with abortion, if anything I support abortion.

Well, that's a shame.


As for things like global warming and universal health care, you have to realize that some of these policies came out of the right or people the right hold in high regard. Churchill was a bigger supporter of the NHS

I never said a thing about health care, but yeah, sure, valid point, RomneyCare as so forth.


So in my opinion, I don't see any good reason to side with one over the other. At best, I see both sides playing good cop, bad cop game on me and I refuse to side with one over the other.

Never claimed to take sides either.

Just making the case, that I stand by, that there are significant differences in motivation, reasoning and results desired.

Based on that assessment, I remain convinced that the "left" is by far the greater threat.

[phill4paul]

Just wanted to point out real quick that the statue that was torn down in Durham was erected for the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy. Probably lost on these protesters was the fact that many of the soldiers that fought and died were conscripted and had no choice. Not every soldier that fought for the Confederacy believed in slavery or the cause of the Confederacy, just as not every soldier that fought for the North believed in a war to end slavery and the cause of the Union.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Taliban and ISIL have been pretty good at removing outdated monuments, statues, art, etc.

Perhaps some of them can be brought to the US as consultants on best practices.

[acptulsa]

So in my opinion, I don't see any good reason to side with one over the other. At best, I see both sides playing good cop, bad cop game on me and I refuse to side with one over the other.

And the more history is discredited, scrubbed, demonized and redefined as immoral, and the more historical figures are judged by the standard of a much more enlightened age than their own, the easier it will be for the populace to be played in this, to quote Orwell, 'endless present where the State can do no wrong.'

Are these statues worth crying over? Lee was memorialized for many, many more reasons than someone misses their slaves. Tear down the statue and it's harder to convince someone who just fell of the turnip truck that history--or the present, for that matter--has depth and complexity.

Yes, books survive. But their numbers are diminished. Whether Bradburian 'fire departments' come after them or not.


Every leftist I have known or heard of wants more taxes and regulations, they may be right on a few issues that we are right on but they are fundamentally anti-liberty, they just care about their own pet issues when the big government they built gets in their way.

Careful. You call them anti-liberty because they disagree with you on your 'own pet issues'.

Libertarians traditionally agreed with Democrats on social issues and Republicans on economic issues. The Powers that be are driving the wedge by obfuscating to Democrats our social tolerance, and getting Republicans worked up about things other than fiscal irresponsibility. So, people who identify with either 'side of the aisle' are alienated from us.

Why would you help them do that?


Just wanted to point out real quick that the statue that was torn down in Durham was erected for the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy.

Good luck getting the word out on that. Saying that soldiers sometimes get duped into fighting for one thing when they think they're fighting for something else entirely is probably the quickest way to get yourself censored or shouted down in the U.S. today.

[Swordsmyth]

Also, I see nobody supporting infanticide other than the people bombing villages filled with children in the middle east and North Africa. I have no problem with abortion, if anything I support abortion.

Abortion kills more people than US wars, right thinking people oppose both.


As for things like global warming and universal health care, you have to realize that some of these policies came out of the right or people the right hold in high regard. Churchill was a bigger supporter of the NHS and Thatcher was the first politician to make global warming a global issue.

Winston Churchill


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA

So in my opinion, I don't see any good reason to side with one over the other. At best, I see both sides playing good cop, bad cop game on me and I refuse to side with one over the other.
There has not been a single major (or maybe any at all) European politician in the 20th or 21st centuries that was anything better than a statist pinko, the Eurpean "right" is well within the democrat parties ideological spectrum.

[Brian4Liberty]

The proliferation of flash drives and external hard drives assures me that people are still storing their data in hardware. I have the videos of just about every conspiracy theory videos I like, copies of all my pics, still keep hard copy books and I am sure I am not the only person doing this.

At this point in time, it would be almost impossible for the state to change dates of important events. This is because all human record(99% sure of this) will never be stored in the clouds.

Impossible?


The point is that they've already altered the history behind the man, everybody but a small fringe minority still believe the civil war was about something else other than slavery. They achieved this without changing any dates or removing any statues. Think WWII and even a smaller minority believe Hitler did not gas the jews. My point is that the state can achieve all of this without ever moving monuments.

Or already happening?

[Antischism]

Preferableto a bloody invasion? Yes. A better alternative, if the goal reallywas an immediate end to slavery would've been to buy all the slaves and emancipate them.

Compensated emancipation in the US, while obviously a preferable solution in theory, would have amounted to roughly $2.88b in 1855 in order to emancipate every slave in the South. To put that in perspective, by GDP, the entire US economy was worth about $3.96b at the time. The figures we're looking at would just be enough for slave owners to break even. If the US had compensated slaveholders in the South even double what the British did, it would have been a paltry sum not worth considering.

You also need to consider that in the US South, slaves were not just workers but a form of capital. While they could depreciate in value due to old age, they were assets that could be sold and even yield greater wealth through child birth given that the children of slaves would then become the slave master's property that they could sell at market.

To compare with the British Caribbean, slaves were mainly used as cheap labor, not as capital; furthermore, compensation was paid for by most of the British nation via taxation — across the whole of the national economy. In the US, it would fall almost entirely on Northern states to compensate the South, and to make that politically viable for electors, they would need to somehow convince non-slaveholders to pay an enormous amount of money to abolish slavery — which would have been difficult no matter the moral ground.

While we tend to focus on the economics of slavery, another important aspect was the psychological and cultural aspect of it: The culture of white supremacy and slave holding among the elite. Generally, the elite viewed freedom purely through the lens of property rights, not personal liberty. In other words, being free meant owning property without limits; not being free meant to be property. Not only was it a form of capital and labor, but slaves were also an indicator of social status. It was deeply ingrained into Southern culture. They viewed slavery as a moral good! They convinced themselves that they were doing everyone a favor by upholding the institution of slavery! You were dealing with both economics and a twisted sense of morality.

Taking all of this into account, I honestly don't see how compensated emancipation would have been a realistic alternative, sadly.

Frankly, outside of compensated emancipation, an outcome where every slave master was imprisoned or shot in the head if they refused to release their slaves would have been just fine, John Brown style.

[Swordsmyth]

Careful. You call them anti-liberty because they disagree with you on your 'own pet issues'.

Libertarians traditionally agreed with Democrats on social issues and Republicans on economic issues. The Powers that be are driving the wedge by obfuscating to Democrats our social tolerance, and getting Republicans worked up about things other than fiscal irresponsibility. So, people who identify with either 'side of the aisle' are alienated from us.

Why would you help them do that?
What is not anti liberty about taxes and regulations?
I call them anti liberty because they are, some people on the right oppose the things that republicans do that are wrong nobody on the left opposes taxes and regulations.
Perhaps you are confusing anarchists with leftists? My disagreements with anarchists are different and I would not say there are no good anarchists.

[juleswin]

And the more history is discredited, scrubbed, demonized and redefined as immoral, and the more historical figures are judged by the standard of a much more enlightened age than their own, the easier it will be for the populace to be played in this, to quote Orwell, 'endless present where the State cn do no wrong.'

Are these statues worth crying over? Lee was memorialized for many, many more reasons than someone misses their slaves. Tear down the statue and it's harder to convince someone who just fell of the turnip truck that history--or the present, for that matter--has depth and complexity.

Yes, books survive. But their numbers are diminished. Whether Bradburian 'fire departments' come after them or not.



Careful. You call them anti-liberty because they disagree with you on your 'own pet issues'.

Libertarians traditionally agreed with Democrats on social issues and Republicans on economic issues. The Powers that be are driving the wedge by obfuscating to Democrats our social tolerance, and getting Republicans worked up about things other than fiscal irresponsibility. So, people who identify with either 'side of the aisle' are alienated from us.

Why would you help them do that?

I am quite sure if I understand the first paragraph but I do agree that physical books are slowly becoming a relic of the past and removing tangible monuments might help accelerate the redefinition of society's knowledge about our history. But still, I just think the bigger picture is about painting a narrative of non establishment right as batshit, confederate worshiping neo nazis. If they could achieve this goal without removing the statue, I bet they would do that too

[acptulsa]

What is not anti liberty about taxes and regulations?
I call them anti liberty because they are, some people on the right oppose the things that republicans do that are wrong nobody on the left opposes taxes and regulations.
Perhaps you are confusing anarchists with leftists? My disagreements with anarchists are different and I would not say there are no good anarchists.

And they call you anti-liberty because some people who also self-identify as 'The Right' support asset forfeiture and the PATRIOT Act.

Am I confusing 'leftists' with [insert some other label here]? I'm talking about individuals, who think they only have two choices and are trying to weigh one of them against the other. Are you confusing individuals with mass-produced bots?

[Swordsmyth]

Compensated emancipation in the US, while obviously a preferable solution in theory, would have amounted to roughly $2.88b in 1855 in order to emancipate every slave in the South. To put that in perspective, by GDP, the entire US economy was worth about $3.96b at the time. The figures we're looking at would just be enough for slave owners to break even. If the US had compensated slaveholders in the South even double what the British did, it would have been a paltry sum not worth considering.

You also need to consider that in the US South, slaves were not just workers but a form of capital. While they could depreciate in value due to old age, they were assets that could be sold and even yield greater wealth through child birth given that the children of slaves would then become the slave master's property that they could sell at market.

To compare with the British Caribbean, slaves were mainly used as cheap labor, not as capital; furthermore, compensation was paid for by most of the British nation via taxation — across the whole of the national economy. In the US, it would fall almost entirely on Northern states to compensate the South, and to make that politically viable for electors, they would need to somehow convince non-slaveholders to pay an enormous amount of money to abolish slavery — which would have been difficult no matter the moral ground.

While we tend to focus on the economics of slavery, another important aspect was the psychological and cultural aspect of it: The culture of white supremacy and slave holding among the elite. Generally, the elite viewed freedom purely through the lens of property rights, not personal liberty. In other words, being free meant owning property without limits; not being free meant to be property. Not only was it a form of capital and labor, but slaves were also an indicator of social status. It was deeply ingrained into Southern culture. They viewed slavery as a moral good! They convinced themselves that they were doing everyone a favor by upholding the institution of slavery! You were dealing with both economics and a twisted sense of morality.

Taking all of this into account, I honestly don't see how compensated emancipation would have been a realistic alternative, sadly.

Frankly, outside of compensated emancipation, an outcome where every slave master was imprisoned or shot in the head if they refused to release their slaves would have been just fine, John Brown style.
The south was in the process of abolishing slavery, leftists like you are like the girl from willy wonka you want it NOW and you don't care who you have to kill or what you have to destroy to get it.
Slavery could have been gone in a generation with no violence if new born blacks were declared free, importation had already been outlawed and the number of slaves was dropping due to slave holders freeing them and a low birth rate in captivity.

[Swordsmyth]

And they call you anti-liberty because some people who also self-identify as 'The Right' support asset forfeiture and the PATRIOT Act.
Some is the key word in that sentence, ALL leftists want more taxes and regulations.

[Anti Federalist]

Just wanted to point out real quick that the statue that was torn down in Durham was erected for the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy. Probably lost on these protesters was the fact that many of the soldiers that fought and died were conscripted and had no choice. Not every soldier that fought for the Confederacy believed in slavery or the cause of the Confederacy, just as not every soldier that fought for the North believed in a war to end slavery and the cause of the Union.

Most of them did not.

They fought for the same reason so many men have fought and died in wars before.

Because they were forced to by law.

Or because they were defending their homes.

[Anti Federalist]

And they call you anti-liberty because some people who also self-identify as 'The Right' support asset forfeiture and the PATRIOT Act.

Wonder what the "right" thinks of law enforcement after all this?

[Brian4Liberty]

Left vs. right:

It is popular in some circles to say there is no difference. This is because of the establishment domination of the two parties that supposedly represent those two sides. They cater to each side, but behind the scenes, they are part of the same machine. In that regard, there is no difference.

But there is a basic, fundamental difference between the two. The right tends to rely on logic, the left tends to rely on emotion. It's that simple. Arguments to each side are most effective when following that basic rule.

It is also the basis for frustration between the two sides. Why are people on the right so cold hearted? Why don't they care about people, animals and their feelings? Why are people on the left so blind to contradictions and the ramifications of policies and actions?

For those who are interested in Myers/Briggs, it is simply the difference between T and F.

Once again, don't mix this with the charlatans that simply cater to one side or the other, usually with a hidden agenda. Hidden agendas are not limited to the left or the right. Liars, thieves and criminals have no preference for emotion or logic. They like whatever works.

[enhanced_deficit]

The Taliban and ISIL have been pretty good at removing outdated monuments, statues, art, etc.

Perhaps some of them can be brought to the US as consultants on best practices.


One side effect of such argument will be that it could further reinforce "Obama supported ISIS" narrative if folks behind recent demolition turned out to be his supporters.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/ws/625/amz/worldservice/live/assets/images/2015/03/06/150306054212_nimrud_destroyed_03_reuters_624x351_r euters.jpg
https://bestmonkeyhosting.com/ghostproject/media/2017/08/como-llegan-las-antiguedades-saqueadas-por-isis-a-coleccionistas-de-eeuu-y-europa.jpg







Related

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/587bc7c31200001200ad7b07.jpg?ops=1910_1000



In context: The Winston Churchill and MLK busts
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/.../context-winston-churchill-and-mlk-busts/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/.../context-winston-churchill-and-mlk-busts/)
Jan 22, 2017 - A symbolic sculpture - ... "Obama started his presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill ...



Trump brings Churchill bust back to Oval Office
www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-churchill-oval-office/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-churchill-oval-office/index.html)
Jan 20, 2017 - President Donald Trump restored the bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval ... while the figure of Martin Luther King Jr. that former President Barack Obama had ... Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust ...

[acptulsa]

Some is the key word in that sentence, ALL leftists want more taxes and regulations.

1. No, some want existing taxes redirected to things other than, for example, war, and bad regulations scrapped in favor of what they see as good regulations. Are they wrong? Yes, but only half-wrong. Are they evil? No.

2. These things are evil. But do they want them because they are evil? Or were they just brainwashed into associating them with good things, and made to believe no one can have the good things without these things? Are they wrong? Yes. If you dismiss them as evil out of hand, and wash your hands of them before you even meet them, who will reeducate them?


But there is a basic, fundamental difference between the two. The right tends to rely on logic, the left tends to rely on emotion. It's that simple.

Is it really? Is that why you see grown men crying their eyes out when the Star Spangled Banner plays, and turning purple and yelling at people about dead Americans whenever the PATRIOT Act is criticized in their presence?

No, the 'Left' and the 'Right' are carefully crafted to attract equal amounts of foolish useful idiots, stimulate equal amounts of emotion, and simultaneously embrace and defy equal amounts of logic.

[Swordsmyth]

Left vs. right:

It is popular in some circles to say there is no difference. This is because of the establishment domination of the two parties that supposedly represent those two sides. They cater to each side, but behind the scenes, they are part of the same machine. In that regard, there is no difference.

But there is a basic, fundamental difference between the two. The right tends to rely on logic, the left tends to rely on emotion. It's that simple. Arguments to each side are most effective when following that basic rule.

It is also the basis for frustration between the two sides. Why are people on the right so cold hearted? Why don't they care about people, animals and their feelings? Why are people on the left so blind to contradictions and the ramifications of policies and actions?

For those who are interested in Myers/Briggs, it is simply the difference between T and F.

Once again, don't mix this with the charlatans that simply cater to one side or the other, usually with a hidden agenda. Hidden agendas are not limited to the left or the right. Liars, thieves and criminals have no preference for emotion or logic. They like whatever works.
A generally correct analysis, but the powers of government and emotion don't mix well, leftists have no business in government.

[Swordsmyth]

1. No, some want existing taxes redirected to things other than, for example, war, and bad regulations scrapped in favor of what they see as good regulations. Are they wrong? Yes. Are they evil? No.

2. These things are evil. But do they want them because they are evil? Or were they just brainwashed into associating them with good things, and made to believe no one can have the good things without these things? Are they wrong? Yes. If you dismiss them as evil out of hand, and wash your hands of them before you even meet them, who will reeducate them?
I did not say "evil", I said there are no good ones, the only good leftist is an ex-leftist, I attempt to educate everyone I interact with but I have yet to convert a single leftist away from their religion of government, though I have heard of some who did succeed and have dealt with some former leftists.

[acptulsa]

I did not say "evil", I said there are no good ones, the only good leftist is an ex-leftist, I attempt to educate everyone I interact with but I have yet to convert a single leftist away from their religion of government, though I have heard of some who did succeed and have dealt with some former leftists.

You'll get to where you can do it too. Seeing them not as 'leftists' but as individuals with certain bits of misinformation in their otherwise human heads is an important step. It will make your pitch much more effective.

[Brian4Liberty]

A generally correct analysis, but the powers of government and emotion don't mix well, leftists have no business in government.

You don't want a government with no concern for people. Likewise, you don't want a government with no concern for rational reason.

[acptulsa]

You don't want a government with no concern for people. Likewise, you don't want a government with no concern for rational reason.

And most of all, you don't want a government which is dedicated to depriving the people of rational reason.

But we seem to have one anyway.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't want a government with no concern for people. Likewise, you don't want a government with no concern for rational reason.
Reason must be dominant in government, some leftists use a little reason but they always let emotion dominate, those on the right are capable of adding some emotion into the mix while keeping reason dominant, those few "leftists" who learn to let reason dominate always "magically" transform into ex-leftists because that is how the definitions go.

[Swordsmyth]

You'll get to where you can do it too. Seeing them not as 'leftists' but as individuals with certain bits of misinformation in their otherwise human heads is an important step. It will make your pitch much more effective.
I see all people as individuals but I keep track of their current status as well, "labels" like everything else have a proper place and level of emphasis.

[Antischism]

The south was in the process of abolishing slavery, leftists like you are like the girl from willy wonka you want it NOW and you don't care who you have to kill or what you have to destroy to get it.
Slavery could have been gone in a generation with no violence if new born blacks were declared free, importation had already been outlawed and the number of slaves was dropping due to slave holders freeing them and a low birth rate in captivity.

Yeah, it makes total sense that the South was ready to give up a huge part of their economy, culture, and means of labor from the kindness of their hearts. The big bad North just didn't let them get to it first.

Arming freed slaves and murdering slave masters would have been justified on every level unless you view black people as property. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a castle doctrine.


Reason must be dominant in government, some leftists use a little reason but they always let emotion dominate, those on the right are capable of adding some emotion into the mix while keeping reason dominant, those few "leftists" who learn to let reason dominate always "magically" transform into ex-leftists because that is how the definitions go.

You speak a lot about emotion, but you're the one who has consistently been name-calling me (including a neg rep where you called me a "YANKEE" in capital letters as if to insult me), while I've been calmly stating my views. It seems like you're letting emotion get in the way of reason.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is it really? Is that why you see grown men crying their eyes out when the Star Spangled Banner plays, and turning purple and yelling at people about dead Americans whenever the PATRIOT Act is criticized in their presence?

No, the 'Left' and the 'Right' are carefully crafted to attract equal amounts of foolish useful idiots, stimulate equal amounts of emotion, and simultaneously embrace and defy equal amounts of logic.

Just because a person is logical does not mean they lack emotion. Likewise, someone who has an emotional preference can certainly utilize logic.

Like I said, these basic fundamentals are deceptively manipulated by the establishment, politicians and the two parties in the US. I was quite explicit about that. Did you read that part of my post?

Once again, Myers-Briggs is helpful in understanding the fundamental difference:


This third preference pair describes how you like to make decisions. Do you like to put more weight on objective principles and impersonal facts (Thinking) or do you put more weight on personal concerns and the people involved (Feeling)?

Don't confuse Feeling with emotion. Everyone has emotions about the decisions they make. Also do not confuse Thinking with intelligence.

Everyone uses Thinking for some decisions and Feeling for others. In fact, a person can make a decision using his or her preference, then test the decision by using the other preference to see what might not have been taken into account.

Take a minute to ask yourself which of the following descriptions seems more natural, effortless, and comfortable for you?

Thinking (T)

When I make a decision, I like to find the basic truth or principle to be applied, regardless of the specific situation involved. I like to analyze pros and cons, and then be consistent and logical in deciding. I try to be impersonal, so I won't let my personal wishes--or other people's wishes--influence me.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I enjoy technical and scientific fields where logic is important.
I notice inconsistencies.
I look for logical explanations or solutions to most everything.
I make decisions with my head and want to be fair.
I believe telling the truth is more important than being tactful.
Sometimes I miss or don't value the "people" part of a situation.
I can be seen as too task-oriented, uncaring, or indifferent.

Feeling (F)

I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I have a people or communications orientation.
I am concerned with harmony and nervous when it is missing.
I look for what is important to others and express concern for others.
I make decisions with my heart and want to be compassionate.
I believe being tactful is more important than telling the "cold" truth.
Sometimes I miss seeing or communicating the "hard truth" of situations.
I am sometimes experienced by others as too idealistic, mushy, or indirect.
...
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, it makes total sense that the South was ready to give up a huge part of their economy, culture, and means of labor from the kindness of their hearts. The big bad North just didn't let them get to it first.
Quite true, if you educate yourself you might find out.


Arming freed slaves and murdering slave masters would have been justified on every level unless you view black people as property. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a castle doctrine.
People who were born and raised in a bad system don't magically become acceptable targets for murder, you could argue that the slaves had a right to revolt but Yankees had no business getting involved especially through government action.

The south was in the process of eliminating slavery, major changes like that take time, for one thing just dumping people who have always been kept like zoo animals out on the street en masse would have been cruel to the ex-slaves, in fact the union did just that and it did no go well for the freed slaves.

[Brian4Liberty]

I did not say "evil", I said there are no good ones, the only good leftist is an ex-leftist, I attempt to educate everyone I interact with but I have yet to convert a single leftist away from their religion of government, though I have heard of some who did succeed and have dealt with some former leftists.

I don't believe that love of government, authority or structure is part of being left or right, T or F.

There are authoritarians on both sides. There are those who want government on both sides. What you will find is that the side who believes that government is currently on their side will tend to support it, and more of it.

Look into S/N and P/J in Myers/Briggs for characteristics that are independent of left and right.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't believe that love of government, authority or structure is part of being left or right, T or F.

There are authoritarians on both sides. There are those who want government on both sides. What you will find is that the side who believes that government is currently on their side will tend to support it, and more of it.

Look into S/N and P/J in Myers/Briggs for characteristics that are independent of left and right.
The emotional love to get their way, and our culture has for generations taught them that government is how to get it, the left calls for more government no matter who is in power.

[TheTexan]

I think statues in general are weird. These statues aren't history--they're decorations. Put them in a museum and fund them privately. What if they took down the Lincoln memorial? Would anyone here care?

Take down the Lincoln memorial !!? Are you crazy !? He ended slavery !!!1!

[acptulsa]

I see all people as individuals but I keep track of their current status as well, "labels" like everything else have a proper place and level of emphasis.

We're living in a place and time where a flaming queir is trotted out to beat the drums for war and encourage intolerance for anyone who questions the war machine, and a figure who seems to be Stalin in drag and has left a trail of bodies in her wake is such a champion of liberal compassion they run her for president. And in the end, every law gets passed on a bipartisan basis and only the attempts to repeal the totalitarian insanity get hung on the prongs of the party lines. A place where intolerant rugged individualists are herded like sheep into the piss balloons and baseball bats of touchy-feeley champions of love and tolerance. A place where people who agree with each other 100% in that both believe blacks and whites shouldn't try to live in the same communities are 'far right' if they happen to be white and 'far left' if they happen to be black.

And you're trying to tell me the labels 'Left' and 'Right' mean something?


The emotional love to get their way, and our culture has for generations taught them that government is how to get it, the left calls for more government no matter who is in power.

Many do, most of the time. Of course, a great many of the right do, too.

Which 'sides' were, by and large, for and against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Are you old enough to remember? 'Cause I remember it well.

That's the problem with forums. This thread sparked a very important discussion which then took place under a title which is completely fails to describe it. Seen it happen a thousand times here. It's a shame, because a sound 'do left and right mean anything?' discussion is worth its weight in gold.

[Antischism]

Quite true, if you educate yourself you might find out.


People who were born and raised in a bad system don't magically become acceptable targets for murder, you could argue that the slaves had a right to revolt but Yankees had no business getting involved especially through government action.

The south was in the process of eliminating slavery, major changes like that take time, for one thing just dumping people who have always been kept like zoo animals out on the street en masse would have been cruel to the ex-slaves, in fact the union did just that and it did no go well for the freed slaves.

I'm not here for an alt-history lesson. I know very well how the South felt about slavery.

Excuse me if I don't empathize with white supremacists who would continue to uphold the institution of slavery if they could. Yes, the slaves could revolt ... with what? Pots and pans? Rocks? Death stares? Part of being a slave meant not having equal rights like, say, the right to bear arms. It's easy to sit back and say "just wait" when you aren't the one being raped, beaten, and treated like a lesser being.


The emotional love to get their way, and our culture has for generations taught them that government is how to get it, the left calls for more government no matter who is in power.

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

[heavenlyboy34]

08-15-2017 08:50 AM
Danke (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?6186-Danke)
Thread:And down come the monuments to the Confederacy.... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514041-And-down-come-the-monuments-to-the-Confederacy&p=6512075#post6512075)
Lame

Still got sand in your vagina, I see Danke. Poor baby. ~hugs~


08-15-2017 08:50 AMStill
Danke (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?6186-Danke)

Thread: And down come the monuments to the Confederacy.... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514041-And-down-come-the-monuments-to-the-Confederacy&p=6512075#post6512075)
Lame

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not here for an alt-history lesson. I know very well how the South felt about slavery.

Excuse me if I don't empathize with white supremacists who would continue to uphold the institution of slavery if they could. Yes, the slaves could revolt ... with what? Pots and pans? Rocks? Death stares? Part of being a slave meant not having equal rights like, say, the right to bear arms. It's easy to sit back and say "just wait" when you aren't the one being raped, beaten, and treated like a lesser being.
So I guess you are in favor of all the wars of "liberation" that have been fought in modern times? No? I didn't really think so, you believe that the North and Lincoln were perfect saints with no ulterior motives and the southerners were perfect devils with no legitimate motives because that is what is convenient for you, and you don't want to hear anything else.
Of course there were bad people in the south, of course slavery was wrong, many in the south recognized that and they were in the process of eliminating it.
Two wrongs don't make a right the north's invasion was wrong even if it had been about freeing the slaves, and it was not about that.




You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.
Anarchy is neither left nor right, it is a rejection of government of any flavor, I have more respect for anarchists than leftists even if I disagree with them.

[tod evans]

Wonder what the "right" thinks of law enforcement after all this?

Pretty sure 'twas a fluke or due to the overwhelming prejudice of the city administration...

There's little to no chance they'll give up copsuckin'...

[Swordsmyth]

We're living in a place and time where a flaming queir is trotted out to beat the drums for war and encourage intolerance for anyone who questions the war machine, and a figure who seems to be Stalin in drag and has left a trail of bodies in her wake is such a champion of liberal compassion they run her for president. And in the end, every law gets passed on a bipartisan basis and only the attempts to repeal the totalitarian insanity get hung on the prongs of the party lines. A place where intolerant rugged individualists are herded like sheep into the piss balloons and baseball bats of touchy-feeley champions of love and tolerance. A place where people who agree with each other 100% in that both believe blacks and whites shouldn't try to live in the same communities are 'far right' if they happen to be white and 'far left' if they happen to be black.

And you're trying to tell me the labels 'Left' and 'Right' mean something?
Yes they do, bad as the alt-right/neo-NAZIs (who are really a brand of leftists) are they are better than the communists (who are farther to the left.)




Many do, most of the time. Of course, a great many of the right do, too.

Which 'sides' were, by and large, for and against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Are you old enough to remember? 'Cause I remember it well.

That's the problem with forums. This thread sparked a very important discussion which then took place under a title which is completely fails to describe it. Seen it happen a thousand times here. It's a shame, because a sound 'do left and right mean anything?' discussion is worth its weight in gold.
I never said the right as currently represented was perfect, but I dare you to find one Demoncrat with a Dr. Ron Paul type voting record, anyone who even comes close is on the right, some on the left sometimes looks like they have a better voting record than the rest but it is never even close and it is only when the Republicans are in power or when they know that their party has the votes to do whatever it is anyway, the AVERAGE Republican's voting record is far better than any Demoncrat's.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.
You clearly haven't studied the history of anarchism prior to 1800. Anarcho communists like to say it's a lefty movement, but that's just because they have a myopic view of history. (See Zeno of Citium and Xenophon of Athens, for example)

[devil21]

All started into action by a photoshopped picture of Dylann Roof holding a confederate flag.

[acptulsa]

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

LOL at anarcho-comunists, and one world government 'anarchists'. I rank them right beside those who make their living in 'military intelligence'. If someone proudly self-identifies using a label which is an oxymoron, does that make them a moronic airhead?


Yes they do, bad as the alt-right/neo-NAZIs (who are really a brand of leftists) are they are better than the communists (who are farther to the left.)

But my point is, the overwhelming majority of people, including the 'alt-right/neo-NAZI' people, consider that to be the right, not the left. These labels don't mean anything. They are used for division, not greater understanding. The less individuals are placed in labeled boxes, the less We, the People talk past each other and the more we talk to each other.


I never said the right as currently represented was perfect, but I dare you to find one Demoncrat with a Dr. Ron Paul type voting record...

I voted for Ron Paul for president three times--in the 2012 primary, in the 2008 primary, and in the 1988 general election. And I can assure you from personal experience that people confronted with a false choice like Dukakkis v. ex-CIA chief G.H.W. Bush, or McCarthy v. Tricky Dick Nixon, often pulled the 'D' lever no matter how much they hated growing government.

You dare me to find one? How many would you like? Admittedly they're all old, and the last ten years have caused the survivors to change their registration so they could vote for one Dr. Paul or another in a primary or three. But these people you consider a myth, I drink a toast with every chance I get.

[Swordsmyth]

But my point is, the overwhelming majority of people, including the 'alt-right/neo-NAZI' people, consider that to be the right, not the left. These labels don't mean anything. They are used for division, not greater understanding. The less individuals are placed in labeled boxes, the less We, the People talk past each other and the more we talk to each other.
This all started when I said:
It can happen here, if the left gains unfettered control of the reigns of government for a long enough time they will indulge their wildest fantasies, we are all that stops them.
In response to what the LEFT was doing about Confederate monuments, what I said was true.
The left is worse than the right even with the common misunderstanding about the labels


I voted for Ron Paul for president three times--in the 2012 primary, in the 2008 primary, and in the 1988 general election. And I can assure you from personal experience that people confronted with a false choice like Dukakkis v. ex-CIA chief G.H.W. Bush, or McCarthy v. Tricky Dick Nixon, often pulled the 'D' lever no matter how much they hated growing government.
And every time the left won things got worse faster than when the false right won.

[acptulsa]

And every time the left won things got worse faster than when the false right won.

No, friend. The War on Drugs didn't start during a Democratic administration. Asset forfeiture didn't start during a Democratic administration. The PATRIOT Act was not signed into law by a Democrat president. The president who sent the National Guard to Kent State was not a Democrat. The vice president who sat in the War Room and told the Air Force to continue their war games as though nothing were happening while 9/11 went down was not a Democrat.

No, neither the 'Left' nor the 'Right' has ever had a monopoly on the Lesser Evil. Guess you had to be there to understand.

[Antischism]

You clearly haven't studied the history of anarchism prior to 1800. Anarcho communists like to say it's a lefty movement, but that's just because they have a myopic view of history. (See Zeno of Citium and Xenophon of Athens, for example)

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

[Swordsmyth]

No, friend. The War on Drugs didn't start during a Democratic administration. Asset forfeiture didn't start during a Democratic administration. The PATRIOT Act was not signed into law by a Democrat president.

No, neither the 'Left' nor the 'Right' has ever had a monopoly on the Lesser Evil. Guess you had to be there to understand.
And I could quote you just as many worse things that the Demoncrats did when they were in power or wanted to do and pushed for the times they lost, do you really think those things would not have been done if the Demoncrats had won the previous elections? if you do you are delusional.

[acptulsa]

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that Marx 'invented' socialism, which was and is nothing more than a way to sell totalitarianism to the masses. But totalitarianism and liberty are concepts which are as old as the very hills.

And just because ignoramuses call Proudhon, who considered himself a mutualist, served in the French government, and was once a good friend of Marx, the 'father of anarchism' does not mean he was against all forms of government.


And I could quote you just as many worse things that the Demoncrats did when they were in power or wanted to do and pushed for the times they lost, do you really think those things would not have been done if the Demoncrats had won the previous elections? if you do you are delusional.

I don't seem to be selling the Democratic Party as the Lesser Evil half as much as you seem to be selling the G.O.P. as the Lesser Evil.

Neither is the lesser evil. They're just the two sides of the same coin. That's my point. As for the theory that, if left in power for four or five cycles, the Democrats would have pushed their agenda a lot further, I agree. And so would the Republicans. And history does not support the conventional wisdom that the Republican agenda would have led to a federal government one whit smaller than the Democratic agenda would have done. Your point that throwing one out in favor of the other slowed the slide into totalitarianism is valid, so far as I can tell. So why are you hating on people who used to occasionally voted for Democrats?

[heavenlyboy34]

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.
You're just getting overly technical. It's like saying polyphony didn't exist until Bach started writing it down.

[acptulsa]

You're just getting overly technical. It's like saying polyphony didn't exist until Bach started writing it down.

Like any good leftist, he's using technicalities to obscure the pure, technically unadulterated facts. The mutualists may have long been called anarchists, but they never were anarchists. And using the fact that they were mistakenly called anarchists to elicit sympathy for the left is disingenuous.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't seem to be selling the Democratic Party as the Lesser Evil half as much as you seem to be selling the G.O.P. as the Lesser Evil.

Neither is the lesser evil. They're just the two sides of the same coin. That's my point. As for the theory that, if left in power for four or five cycles, the Democrats would have pushed their agenda a lot further, I agree. And so would the Republicans. Your point that throwing one out in favor of the other slowed the slide into totalitarianism is valid, so far as I can tell. So why are you hating on people who used to occasionally vote for Democrats?
To make myself clear since I wasn't, the Demoncrats would have done those things that you pointed to Republicans doing and the horrible things they wanted to do, they are the Greater evil.

I did not "hate on" anybody, least of all anyone who is an ex-democrat or even an ex-leftist, those who demonstrate a capacity to learn are to be commended.

[acptulsa]

To make myself clear since I wasn't, the Demoncrats would have done those things that you pointed to Republicans doing and the horrible things they wanted to do, they are the Greater evil.

It's a theory. But Reagan didn't any more eliminate Carter's Department of Education than Obama eliminated Dubya's DHS. In fact, both expanded those things. And I'm not sure Carter got the ED in place before he left; Reagan might have implemented it.

No, I don't believe you. The two parties are a pair of pacifiers. One pushes one on front for a while, then the other pushes on the other front, but neither ever undoes the damage the other inflicted. Witness Obamacare repeal; have you noticed that no one with gray hair was the tiniest bit surprised it didn't happen?

Either party would have gotten around to all of the agenda, in the end.

[Antischism]

It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that Marx 'invented' socialism, which was and is nothing more than a way to sell totalitarianism to the masses. But totalitarianism and liberty are concepts which are as old as the very hills.

And just because ignoramuses call Proudhon, who considered himself a mutualist, served in the French government, and was once a good friend of Marx, the 'father of anarchism' does not mean he was against all forms of government.

Marx actually had very little to say on socialism. Regarding communism, his goal was to achieve a stateless, classless society. A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways. For example, while Marx argued that implementation would be effective on an advanced capitalist state, Lenin applied it to an economically stagnant Russia overrun by peasant farmers. Then there's the whole vanguard party thing.


Like any good leftist, he's using technicalities to obscure the pure, technically unadulterated facts. The mutualists may have long been called anarchists, but they never were anarchists. And using the fact that they were mistakenly called anarchists to elicit sympathy for the left is disingenuous.

Boy, if you don't regard the mutualists as "true" anarchists, I'd hate to hear your feelings on "anarcho-capitalists." I guess Lysander Spooner wasn't an anarchist, either.

[Swordsmyth]

It's a theory. But Reagan didn't any more eliminate Carter's Department of Education than Obama eliminated Dubya's DHS. In fact, both expanded those things. And I'm not sure Carter got the ED in place before he left; Reagan might have implemented it.

No, I don't believe you. They'd have both gotten around to all of it, in the end.
There are things Republicans never could do because they are the "controlled OPPOSITION" and there are many other things they would do but only much more slowly, there are also many things they only can do because they "must" compromise with Demoncrats, they could not do those if people didn't elect Demoncrats.

In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.

[acptulsa]

A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways.

That doesn't mean leftists are correct to call a mutualist an anarchist.


There are things Republicans never could do because they are the "controlled OPPOSITION" and there are many other things they would do but only much more slowly, there are also many things they only can do because they "must" compromise with Demoncrats, they could not do those if people didn't elect Demoncrats.

In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.

And the things the Republicans could do much more quickly than the Democrats were just as bad. No less evil at all.

And I wasn't trying to convince you the Party of Huey P. Long, LBJ and the Bloody Clintons was anything other than evil. I was just trying to help you see that no matter how another poor, powerless slob self-identifies, religiously wastes his or her vote, or blathers on the internet, they can have valid points, and you'll never help them find a more worthwhile path by stubbornly refusing to believe that. Both major parties have $#!+ that really, really stinks, and we all have much bigger problems than half of us disagree with the other half about which pile of $#!+ stinks worse.

So long as we obsess on that, they will be able to keep us divided and conquered. Arguing about which mountain of evil is taller than the other is a path to slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Swordsmyth]

And the things the Republicans could do much more quickly than the Democrats were just as bad. No less evil at all.

And I wasn't trying to convince you the Party of Huey P. Long, LBJ and the Bloody Clintons was anything other than evil at all. I was just trying to help you see that no matter how another poor, powerless slob self-identifies, religiously wastes his or her vote, or blathers on the internet, they can have valid points, and you'll never help them find a more worthwhile path by stubbornly refusing to believe that. Both major parties have $#!+ that really, really stinks, and we all have much bigger problems than half of us disagree with the other half about which pile of $#!+ stinks worse.

So long as we obsess on that, they will be able to keep us divided and conquered. Arguing about which mountain of evil is taller than the other is a path to slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.
I never said leftists couldn't be right about anything and I always acknowledge it when they are, and I didn't start this as a "right is better than left" conversation, I stated that if we don't stop them the left could and would drag us into 1984, then somebody chimed in to tell me that the left is no worse than the right and since I disagree I then discussed that concept.

Like I said above: In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.

[Swordsmyth]

Marx actually had very little to say on socialism. Regarding communism, his goal was to achieve a stateless, classless society. A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways. For example, while Marx argued that implementation would be effective on an advanced capitalist state, Lenin applied it to an economically stagnant Russia overrun by peasant farmers. Then there's the whole vanguard party thing.
And now the inner Marxist comes out in view for all to see.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I am commenting on the Civil War discussion. I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge. It's easy to say "the Civil War was about slavery" because that is a binary issue. You are, legally, either a slave or not a slave. That is very easy to teach to a grade schooler. It's much harder to teach the other issues, even to college students and adults. How many adults even know the meaning of the word "tariff," let alone its application?

The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North. The South generally exported, while the North generally imported. The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South. The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.

The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer. It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present. Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."

The two regions were economically different. You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe. The South had more raw materials. The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay. They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton. The tariff was an ongoing issue. First in 1828. The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861. It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote.

The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods. The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff. The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.

England and Europe favored the South because they did not favor the tariff. England also played it's own shrewd angle, fitting for a country that thought it superior to many and practicing colonialism. Lincoln knew he could not sell the war internationally on the tariff/economics, so he played the slavery card. England (rightly) opposed slavery, so the US government played that angle. Most Americans probably did not really care about slavery, at least to the point of killing one another over it. Lincoln was a shrewd and insincere racist, but he was also practical by manipulating the slavery angle. The South was definitely not some innocent bystander either. Their insistence on slavery was the epitome of greed and pathetic human behavior. They lost all righteousness with their greed.

I know what I just wrote is simplistic and on some grade school level, but it's really tiresome to hear people completely vilifying the south today. The only thing they know to say is "because slavery." War and conflict almost always have an economic component. Most wars have enough blame to go around. It's not like North was totally good, and the South was totally bad. People view history through the these lenses without making a critical analysis effort.

[jllundqu]

Why is this even a debate?? You're arguing about which master is better? Jesus Christ we have a long way to go.

[FunkBuddha]

Sheriff pursuing felonies after Confederate statue torn down (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charges-sought-toppled-confederate-statue-49226601)

[Swordsmyth]

Sheriff pursuing felonies after Confederate statue torn down (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charges-sought-toppled-confederate-statue-49226601)

GOOD.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why is this even a debate?? You're arguing about which master is better? Jesus Christ we have a long way to go.
Srsly? Read the thread.

[Antischism]

Thinking back on it, wasn't Robert E. Lee opposed to monuments? That would put a humorous spin on things.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Thinking back on it, wasn't Robert E. Lee opposed to monuments? That would put a humorous spin on things.

"Thinking back on it." More lulz. You just saw that on one of your liberal media outlets broadcast today.

I barely heard of you til yesterday, but you really are a card, chief!

[Antischism]

"Thinking back on it." More lulz. You just saw that on one of your liberal media outlets broadcast today.

I barely heard of you til yesterday, but you really are a card, chief!

I guess you aren't familiar with rhetorical questions.

[acptulsa]

I guess you aren't familiar with rhetorical questions.

Wasn't Robert E Lee possessed of the moral turpitude to oppose slavery in the South in the 1850s and 1860s?

That was not a rhetorical question.

[Antischism]

Wasn't Robert E Lee possessed of the moral turpitude to oppose slavery in the South in the 1850s and 1860s?

That was not a rhetorical question.

It's difficult to give him too much credit when he was also of the belief that black people needed guidance from whites to survive in the US.


I think it however a greater evil to the white man 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.

This implies that he believed they were inherently inferior and needed the "guiding hand" of the white man. Or guiding whip. Whatever.

[acptulsa]

It's difficult to give him too much credit when he was also of the belief that black people needed guidance from whites to survive in the US.

And if you were magically transported to Africa in the 1860s, you wouldn't need guidance?

.
This implies that he believed they were inherently inferior and needed the guiding hand of the white man.

The man isn't here to defend himself from words being put in his mouth, so I'll do it. I don't infer that at all. It is entirely reasonable to assume he meant that they had been deliberately kept so ignorant that it was cruel to let them loose with no education at all. And that is a valid and kindhearted concern.

[angelatc]

...almost like it was planned. Move the narrative away from Southern and historic heritage and link it to neo-Nazi's and now there will be no stopping it.
Nashville, Lexington, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Gainseville.




https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-kentucky.html

Not just down - up. These fools have entirely lost their minds.


Vigilante protesters start DIGGING UP body of Confederate general Nathan Forrest from his grave (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173456/Vigilante-protesters-start-DIGGING-body-Confederate-general-Nathan-Forrest-KKK-leader-grave.html)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/24/14/2ACE44CD00000578-0-Threats_Isaac_Richmond_center_said_that_the_group_ would_return_w-a-21_1437744260476.jpg

[KrokHead]

Good. The Confederacy was anti-capitalist and anti liberty.

[angelatc]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/11/museum-natural-history-theodore-roosevelt-statue-protest?CMP=share_btn_tw


Take down 'racist' Theodore Roosevelt statue, activists tell New York museum
Protesters gather at the American Museum of Natural History to demand the removal of the statue and issue an urgent call to rename Columbus Day

785698579671162880

[heavenlyboy34]

Good. The Confederacy was anti-capitalist and anti liberty.
Same can be said of the Union. Still not a good case for whitewashing history. Unless perhaps you want to tear down ALL the memorials for BOTH sides.

[Anti Federalist]

Take down 'racist' Theodore Roosevelt statue, activists tell New York museum


Georgia Civil War Museum Shuts Down Rather Than Surrender Its Confederate Flags
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/georgia-civil-war-museum-shuts-down-rather-surrender-its-confederate-flags

Sort of shoots a hole in all that "take it off public property and put it in a museum" talk, doesn't it?

And everybody acts shocked and indignant when blowback occurs.

[acptulsa]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/11/museum-natural-history-theodore-roosevelt-statue-protest?CMP=share_btn_tw



785698579671162880

I'll make you a deal. You can take down all the racist and imperialist Teddy Roosevelt statues you want, so long as you take down a racist and socialist Woody Wilson statue for each one.

In fact, we might throw a money bomb and replace them all with Calvin Coolidge statues. He wasn't a racist.

[euphemia]

In the meantime statues of one of the worst racists in history are all over the place. Can't wait to see what happens when pro-abortion activists and racists go toe to toe over statues of Margaret Sanger.

[Anti Federalist]

I'll make you a deal. You can take down all the racist and imperialist Teddy Roosevelt statues you want, so long as you take down a racist and socialist Woody Wilson statue for each one.

A progressive democrat.


In fact, we might throw a money bomb and replace them all with Calvin Coolidge statues. He wasn't a racist.

A limited government constitutional republican.

[acptulsa]

A progressive democrat.



A limited government constitutional republican.

Yeah, I know. Everyone will be against it. Especially the press.

But with God as my witness, the man wasn't racist!

[angelatc]

Sort of shoots a hole in all that "take it off public property and put it in a museum" talk, doesn't it?


Most museums seem to take tax dollars anyway...

[enhanced_deficit]

If kept on current course, this will lead to more chaos. Saner heads should prevail soon.

TRUMP DEFIANT! (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-defiant-charlottesville-unrest-blame-both-sides-224328958.html)
HATE ON BOTH SIDES (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-again-casts-blame-both-sides-deadly-violence-011550978--finance.html)

http://www.drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

SHOWDOWN: NC SHERIFF PURSUES FELONIES FOR MONUMENT TOPPLING...

'No one getting away'... (http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article167300007.html)

Lincoln Memorial Vandalized... (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Lincoln-Memorial-Vandalized-With-Red-Spray-Paint-440565873.html)


Protesters could be charged for bringing down Durham, N.C., Confederate statue
18 mins ago - Woman arrested for bringing down Durham, N.C., Confederate statue ... renamed from Lee Park — was the site of a similar protest in May.
Takilya Thompson used a ladder to scale the podium, climb the statue, and help pull it down.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3413284 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-charged-bringing-confederate-statue-article-1.3413284)





Social media connects Ohio to Charlottesville attack

Posted by FOX19 Digital Media Staff

FOX19 - People who attended the protests in Charlottesville over the weekend are being called out on social media.
Commenters are attempting to identify the participants and, in one case, apparently recognized a former Mason High School student among the violence.
http://www.wtol.com/story/36132730/social-media-connects-ohio-to-charlottesville-attack



Statue of Martin Luther King on MLK Bridge vandalized

TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) - Just one day after the holiday to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the statue of the late civil rights leader that sits on the bridge that bears his name over the Maumee River was vandalized.
http://www.wtol.com/story/11846562/statue-of-martin-luther-king-on-mlk-bridge-vandalized

[AuH20]

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/dhtt8ckxuaeig8o.jpg

[Blueskies]

Libertarian support for The Confederacy really bothers me. It was an evil police state; one of the most anti-liberty governments of all time. It's easy to criticize Lincoln and many things the Union did, but you can not be pro-liberty and also support the confederacy.

[Swordsmyth]

Libertarian support for The Confederacy really bothers me. It was an evil police state; one of the most anti-liberty governments of all time. It's easy to criticize Lincoln and many things the Union did, but you can not be pro-liberty and also support the confederacy.
It was better than the union, in the context of history they were the better side and have been insufferably defamed.

[Blueskies]

It was better than the union, in the context of history they were the better side and have been insufferably defamed.

In what way?

Sure, the Civil War was a horrific event. Millions of dollars were wasted; hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

But the Confederacy was a government literally devoted to keeping almost 40% of its people in bondage. No rights. Rape, torture, murder, mating like animals, the breaking up of families -- all permitted. People born into bondage and sold like cattle. It's sad that I even have to point this out. In many ways, the confederacy was worse than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin.

If you make a list of things Libertarians should be opposed to, slavery is at the top, no question. Worse than war. Worse than the end of private property. Feel free to rightly criticize the union and its policies, but if you support the confederacy, realize that you are the worst kind of statist.

[heavenlyboy34]

In what way?

Sure, the Civil War was a horrific event. Millions of dollars were wasted; hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

But the Confederacy was a government literally devoted to keeping almost 40% of its people in bondage. No rights. Rape, torture, murder, mating like animals, the breaking up of families -- all permitted. People born into bondage and sold like cattle. It's sad that I even have to point this out. In many ways, the confederacy was worse than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin.

If you make a list of things Libertarians should be opposed to, slavery is at the top, no question. Worse than war. Worse than the end of private property. Feel free to rightly criticize the union and its policies, but if you support the confederacy, realize that you are the worst kind of statist.
http://julipagemorgan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Triple-facePalm.jpg
Judging by this, I'm guessing you've never actually studied Stalin's reign in any significant detail. amirite?
http://db3.memegenerator.net/cache/instances/folder149/250x250/71686149/stalingulag-go-to-gulag.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

In what way?

Sure, the Civil War was a horrific event. Millions of dollars were wasted; hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

But the Confederacy was a government literally devoted to keeping almost 40% of its people in bondage. No rights. Rape, torture, murder, mating like animals, the breaking up of families -- all permitted. People born into bondage and sold like cattle. It's sad that I even have to point this out. In many ways, the confederacy was worse than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin.

If you make a list of things Libertarians should be opposed to, slavery is at the top, no question. Worse than war. Worse than the end of private property. Feel free to rightly criticize the union and its policies, but if you support the confederacy, realize that you are the worst kind of statist.
Slavery was wrong but the south was on the way to getting rid of it, meanwhile Yankees were dedicated statists who had already discarded the constitution and sought to destroy the rights of all men.

[Swordsmyth]

http://julipagemorgan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Triple-facePalm.jpg
Judging by this, I'm guessing you've never actually studied Stalin's reign in any significant detail. amirite?
Or the history of the civil war period.

[nikcers]

Libertarian support for The Confederacy really bothers me. It was an evil police state; one of the most anti-liberty governments of all time. It's easy to criticize Lincoln and many things the Union did, but you can not be pro-liberty and also support the confederacy.

I think that what the government told you about history is a lie, and that its really easy to condemn the opinions of people by calling them racist. It's even easier nowadays in conservative circles to discredit someone completely by implying that they are a reverse racist.

It's such a winning move they are still doing it. They haven't brought down the tower of babel, we just have lost sight of the prize because the government has co-opted enough people into doing their bidding because they bribe them with bread and political theater.

That being said -I think people remember the good more often then the bad - and people remember things emotionally . The Misinformation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514053-Misinformation)-Stream-Media wants us to think that (evil)speech isn't free, liberty is at stake here, this isn't about the confederacy or hate.

[Blueskies]

I said "in many ways" not in all ways.

In many ways, perhaps most ways, Stalin and Hitler were worse than the confederacy. The confederacy didn't round up and exterminate millions of people, for example, or wage wars of conquest. It didn't engage in purges. It wasn't obsessed with world domination. It just wanted to preserve its evil ways.

But neither Stalin nor the Nazis participated in a systemic enslavement of almost half their population for the benefit of the aristocracy. (To be fair, you could argue that under Stalin, Soviet citizens were slaves to the state, and in some sense they were, but to a much more limited extent than American slaves.) They didn't make Germans or Russians have sex with each other to increase their own wealth. They didn't trade members of German or Russian families among each other. The SS and the NKVD didn't engage in systemic rape of German and Soviet women. etc.

Obviously, I'm not trying to lessen the evils of Nazism or Stalinism here. Only to suggest that the confederacy was approaching that level of evil, and ought to be treated as such, particularly among those who claim to support liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

I said "in many ways" not in all ways.

In many ways, perhaps most ways, Stalin and Hitler were worse than the confederacy. The confederacy didn't round up and exterminate millions of people, for example, or wage wars of conquest. It didn't engage in purges. It wasn't obsessed with world domination. It just wanted to preserve its evil ways.

But neither Stalin nor the Nazis participated in a systemic enslavement of almost half their population for the benefit of the aristocracy. (To be fair, you could argue that under Stalin, Soviet citizens were slaves to the state, and in some sense they were, but to a much more limited extent than American slaves.) They didn't make Germans or Russians have sex with each other to increase their own wealth. They didn't trade members of German or Russian families among each other. The SS and the NKVD didn't engage in systemic rape of German and Soviet women. etc.

Obviously, I'm not trying to lessen the evils of Nazism or Stalinism here. Only to suggest that the confederacy was approaching that level of evil, and ought to be treated as such, particularly among those who claim to support liberty.
:eek: You can't be serious. Satire?:confused:

[Unknownuser]

It's been a long time since I've signed in. Just wanted to say I miss 2008 and the liberty movement.

[Blueskies]

:eek: You can't be serious. Satire?:confused:

Please tell me how a government whose existence was devoted to keeping almost half its population in total slavery from cradle to grave was in way compatible with the tenants of liberty.

You'll fight against an income tax because you don't want the state to take a portion of your income, but you support the right of a person to own another human being? GTFO.

[nikcers]

(To be fair, you could argue that under Stalin, Soviet citizens were slaves to the state, and in some sense they were, but to a much more limited extent than American slaves..
You can't argue moral platitudes like slavery being bad, then say that limited slavery is less bad. I think the term for what you are doing here is splitting hairs. You should decide for yourself fully, what you think slavery means, better yet, what you think liberty means. Then you can criticize people who want to celebrate the America culture. No one is arguing that we should bring back slavery, in fact lots of those "confederacy" defenders think that everyone has a different american experience, and even the one the government provides us with isn't fair sometimes. I don't think the black people in jail for nonviolent crimes feel very free right now.

[Blueskies]

You can't argue moral platitudes like slavery being bad, then say that limited slavery is less bad. I think the term for what you are doing here is splitting hairs. You should decide for yourself fully, what you think slavery means, better yet, what you think liberty means. Then you can criticize people who want to celebrate the America culture. No one is arguing that we should bring back slavery, in fact lots of those "confederacy" defenders think that everyone has a different american experience, and even the one the government provides us with isn't fair sometimes. I don't think the black people in jail for nonviolent crimes feel very free right now.

Huh? What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China?

My point is simply this: The Confederacy was a very evil, very anti-liberty government. One of the most anti-liberty governments in at least the last 300 years.

So for someone who claims to support liberty, defending or sympathizing with the confederacy is hypocritical at best. At worst, it's suggestive of some deeply anti-liberty beliefs.

[Swordsmyth]

Please tell me how a government whose existence was devoted to keeping almost half its population in total slavery from cradle to grave was in way compatible with the tenants of liberty.

You'll fight against an income tax because you don't want the state to take a portion of your income, but you support the right of a person to own another human being? GTFO.
Stop being an idiot, the south stood for much more than slavery (which they were on the way to eliminating), nobody alive wants to bring back slavery.
The south believed in individual rights and limited government, they had inherited slavery but they were moving to end it, most southerners did not own slaves and were not fighting to keep them.
The North had rejected the Constitution and wanted an all powerful government.

[Blueskies]

Stop being an idiot, the south stood for much more than slavery (which they were on the way to eliminating), nobody alive wants to bring back slavery.
The south believed in individual rights and limited government, they had inherited slavery but they were moving to end it, most southerners did not own slaves and were not fighting to keep them.
The North had rejected the Constitution and wanted an all powerful government.

This is false, and complete revisionist history.

Please read the declarations of independence of the various confederate states. Almost all of them cite slavery as the primary reason for this succession.

And yes, the south really believed in individual rights. All those slaves had so many rights.

Talk about an idiot. Try reading a history book sometime.

[Swordsmyth]

This is false, and complete revisionist history.

Please read the declarations of independence of the various confederate states. Almost all of them cite slavery as the primary reason for this succession.

And yes, the south really believed in individual rights. All those slaves had so many rights.

Talk about an idiot. Try reading a history book sometime.
If you really want to know the truth try reading these threads.
Causes of Southern Seccession- the Cotton States (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States)Causes of Southern Seccession- the Upper South (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512620-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Upper-South)

[nikcers]

Huh? What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China?

My point is simply this: The Confederacy was a very evil, very anti-liberty government. One of the most anti-liberty governments in at least the last 300 years.

So for someone who claims to support liberty, defending or sympathizing with the confederacy is hypocritical at best. At worst, it's suggestive of some deeply anti-liberty beliefs.

Yeah because that's not the argument they are defending. You are being dishonest with yourself unless you at least acknowledge that much. No one is defending evil, I think that would be a different debate entirely. You might be lucky though, this argument will play out again, and it might even be a real debate.

There will be checks of power against the government as they continue to put their feelers out and see what they can "get away with". Even Trump has started blaming congress on his problems and calling the news fake, which is what Obama did every day. He blamed Congress and what he called the WWF news.

[Blueskies]

If you really want to know the truth try reading these threads.
Causes of Southern Seccession- the Cotton States (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States)Causes of Southern Seccession- the Upper South (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512620-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Upper-South)

That's cute and all, but I prefer to go straight to the horse's mouth:

Texas: "maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy."

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

Georgia: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "

South Carolina: "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

[heavenlyboy34]

Please tell me how a government whose existence was devoted to keeping almost half its population in total slavery from cradle to grave was in way compatible with the tenants of liberty.

D00d, you just compared the CSA to a regime literally responsible for the murder of millions of people. 1 milllion+ in the gulags alone. 20 million dead under Stalin alone. Figures by R. Medvedev (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html):
* One million imprisoned or exiled from 1927 to 1929, falsely accused of being saboteurs or members of opposition parties.
* Nine million to 11 million of the more prosperous peasants driven from their lands and another two million to three million arrested or exiled in the early 1930's campaign of forced farm collectivization. Many of these were believed to have been killed.
* Six million to seven million killed in the punitive famine inflicted on peasants in 1932 and 1933.
* One million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935 for belonging to families of former nobility, merchants, capitalists and officials.
* About one million executed in the ''great terror'' of 1937-38, and another four million to six million sent to forced labor camps from which most, including Mr. Medvedev's father, did not return.
* Two million to three million sent to camps for violating absurdly strict labor laws imposed in 1940.
* At least 10 million to 12 million ''repressed'' in World War II, including millions of Soviet-Germans and other ethnic minorities forcibly relocated.
* More than one million arrested on political grounds from 1946 to Stalin's death in 1953.


You'll fight against an income tax because you don't want the state to take a portion of your income, but you support the right of a person to own another human being? GTFO. You sure enjoy whacking strawmen. #notimpressed

[Blueskies]

D00d, you just compared the CSA to a regime literally responsible for the murder of millions of people. 1 milllion+ in the gulags alone. 20 million dead under Stalin alone. Figures by R. Medvedev (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html):
* One million imprisoned or exiled from 1927 to 1929, falsely accused of being saboteurs or members of opposition parties.
* Nine million to 11 million of the more prosperous peasants driven from their lands and another two million to three million arrested or exiled in the early 1930's campaign of forced farm collectivization. Many of these were believed to have been killed.
* Six million to seven million killed in the punitive famine inflicted on peasants in 1932 and 1933.
* One million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935 for belonging to families of former nobility, merchants, capitalists and officials.
* About one million executed in the ''great terror'' of 1937-38, and another four million to six million sent to forced labor camps from which most, including Mr. Medvedev's father, did not return.
* Two million to three million sent to camps for violating absurdly strict labor laws imposed in 1940.
* At least 10 million to 12 million ''repressed'' in World War II, including millions of Soviet-Germans and other ethnic minorities forcibly relocated.
* More than one million arrested on political grounds from 1946 to Stalin's death in 1953.
You sure enjoy whacking strawmen. #notimpressed

You're strawmaning me.

I said in some aspects. I didn't say the confederacy was worse than Stalin. Murder is of course horrible, but it's not the only way to violate someone's rights.

Did Stalin forcibly breed Russians for his own enrichment? Did he keep a harem of women that he regularly raped?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I guess you aren't familiar with rhetorical questions.

Guess you're not since you did not ask one.

[Swordsmyth]

That's cute and all, but I prefer to go straight to the horse's mouth:

Texas: "maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy."

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

Georgia: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "

South Carolina: "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

Arkansas Declaration

“[upper south]Forced to chose between Lincolns demand and what they believed to be morally correct and Honorable..seceded as well”
-Brevin Alexander Historian Professor of History at Longwood University

“This convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas”

“The people of this commonwealth are free men not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property, against northern mendacity and usurpation”
-Arkansas Governor Henry Rector Response to Lincolns call for Volunteers

Before Lincolns call for volunteers the people of Arkansas voted to stay in the union by a vote of 23,600 to 17,900. Than on March 4 1861 the Arkansas convention voted 40-35 to stay in the union with the president of the convention a unionist. On May 6th 1861 After Fort Sumtner and Lincolns call for men, Arkansas regathered this time only 5 votes went against secession, 4 of them would relent and join in succession in a short time. The before and after votes, as well as the Arkansas declaration for secession give the clear reasons for joining the confederacy.

Tennessee

“Tennessee will not Furnish a man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights, and those of our southern brothers”
-Tennessee Governor Isham Harris Response to Lincoln Calling on Tennessee for aid to Suppress the Rebellion in the Cotton States

On February the 9th the same day that Mississippi left the union, Tennessee voters turned down secession by a 4-1 margin. However after Lincolns call to volunteers Governor Isham Harris wrote President Lincoln saying if the federal government was going to “coerce” the seceded states into returning, Tennessee had no choice but to join its Southern neighbors. Harris recalled the Tennessee legislature on May 6 for another vote this time to join the confederacy. Than on June 8 voters approved the measure by a 2-1 margin.

Virginia

“The principle now in contest between north and south is simply that of state sovereignty”
Richmond Examiner Sep 11 1862

“A union that can be only maintained by swords and bayonets... has no charm for me”
-Robert E Lee

Before Lincolns call for volunteers with slavery equally safe in the north or south, the slave state of Virginia on April 4th 1861 voted by a 2-1 margin to stay in the union. After Lincolns call for volunteers Virginia gathered again and by a vote of 126,000 to 20,400 Virginia left the union. In the minds of Virginians, that reason was Lincolns call to volunteers and the violation of state sovereignty. Virginia did not give a lengthy declaration of why it left the union [The voting showed already] just a short ordinance of secession.

“the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power "to declare war," and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign Power: and whereas, on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia; and subsequently the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has reaffirmed in substance the same policy, with almost equal unanimity; and whereas, the State of Virginia deeply sympathizes with the Southern States in the wrongs they have suffered, and in the position they have assumed; and having made earnest efforts peaceably to compose the differences which have severed the Union, and having failed in that attempt, through this unwarranted act on the part of the President; and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be repelled. Therefore I, JOHN LETCHER, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, have thought proper to order all armed volunteer regiments or companies within this State forthwith to hold themselves in readiness for immediate orders, and upon the reception of this proclamation to report to the Adjutant-General of the State their organization and numbers, and prepare themselves for efficient service. Such companies as are not armed and equipped will report that fact, that they may be properly supplied.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed, this 17th day of April, 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth.
Governor of Virginia JOHN LETCHER”.
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/n....s-norfolk.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/n...-secretary-cameron-state-affairs-norfolk.html)

Virginia ordinance of secession

“Declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States” [Cotton States the original succession states]

“It was not for slavery that she [Virginia] deliberately resolved to draw the sword...but for this cornerstone [States Sovereignty] of all constitutional liberty north and south”
-R.L Dabney 1867 A Defense of Virginia and the South

Kentucky

Kentucky originally acted on its sovereignty and remained neutral, however events forced it to join the war. The official Kentucky government was pro north by about about a 3-1 margin but chose to keep its neutrality. However there was gaining support for the south When Lincoln called for volunteers. The Kentucky Governor wrote "President Lincoln, I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister southern states.” Later neutrality would be violated by southern troops and the state would join the union, however a pro south Kentucky government was set up and was accepted by Jeff Davis into the confederacy on December the 10th as the 13th confederate state. States rights was the main cause for the pro south Kentucky government reason for secession.

Kentucky Declaration For Leaving The Union

“Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, .... because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, .....have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.”

North Carolina

North Carolina will “Be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people”
-North Carolina Governor John Ellis

Having previously turned down even voting on secession, North Carolina responded to Lincolns call for volunteers by than unanimously adopted a secession ordinance, showing the impact it had on the state.

“Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people.. whereas, this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization, and conceived in a spirit of aggression unparalleled by any act of recorded history, but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism, to be established by worse than foreign enemies on the ruins of our once glorious Constitution of Equal Rights.Now, therefore, I, John W. Ellis, Governor of the State of North-Carolina, for these extraordinary causes, do hereby issue this, my Proclamation, notifying and requesting the Senators and Members of the House of Commons of the General Assembly of North-Carolina, to meet in Special Session at the Capitol, in the City of Raleigh, on Wednesday, the first day of May next. And I furthermore exhort all good citizens throughout the State to be mindful that their first allegiance is due to the Sovereignty which protects their homes and dearest interests, as their first sevice is due for the sacred defence of their hearths, and of the soil which holds the graves of our glorious dead.United action in defence of the sovereignty of North-Carolina and of the rights of the South, becomes now the duty of all.the 17th Day of April, A. D., 1861, and in the eight-fifth year of our independence.
JOHN W. ELLIS
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/multimedia/6542

Missouri

“Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with”
-Missouri Governor Jackson Response to Lincolns call for Volunteers

The slave state of Missouri was almost universally pro union. When the south sent delegates to try and convince the state to join the south, they were booed and jeered so that the CSA delegate could not even be heard. On March 21 1861 the Missouri convention voted 98-1 against secession, but in its sovereignty, kept its neutrality. Later many in the state became angry and felt their state sovereignty was violated during the “Camp Jackson Affair” with General Lyon capturing the arsenal in St Louis and when union soldiers opened fire on civilians and pro confederates killing dozens. Many felt the federal government was violating the states neutral position and support for secession grew rapid in the state. Lyon would than push the official Governor and state legislature out of Jefferson city.

“The events in St Louis pushed many conditional unionist into the ranks of secessionist”
-James McPherson Battle Cry of Freedom

This led to a end to neutrality and both a pro confederate and pro union government in the state. Missouri was accepted on November 28th as the 12th confederate state. Pro south Missouri reasons for secession, centered around constitutional violations of the Lincoln administration.

Missouri Declaration For leaving The Union

“Has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.”

“Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.”
-Clyde Wilson distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina

“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France

With slavery equally protected north or south and even more so in the north, the upper south states of VA, NC, TENN, ARK, KY, MO makes it hard to conclude slavery had much or anything to do with their reasons for leaving. When the original deep south states left the union, there were more slaves and more slave states remaining in the union, than within the newly formed confederacy. Most upper south state declarations did not even mention slavery or only in passing, and that usually associated with violations of states rights or the constitution. But they heavily spoke on states rights, states sovereignty and Lincolns call for volunteers as the reason for secession. Those states chose to stay with the union before Lincolns call for volunteers, that they saw as a massive violation of state sovereignty.

“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”
-Robert E Lee 1870

Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy

“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their Independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”
-Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”

“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord Whig party leader at the onset of the war

Slavery in fact was safer in the union than had the confederacy been allowed to form. Slavery was in both the northern and southerner states for the entire civil war. It was constitutionally protected, Lincoln and the north supported the Corwin amendment that would have protected slavery forever in the the U.S constitution.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof[ slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
-Corwin Amendment

The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A confederacy would have no protection for runaways north. Slavery was as secure as it had ever been for those southern slave states. Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union such as Virginia as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion [not slavery]. The 1860 republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere with slavery. Lincoln also said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address

After the deep south left the union the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”

“Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its [slavery’s] preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.’ ”
-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina, p. 3

Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

If the south fought only for slavery,it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause.

“The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel

Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”

Jefferson Davis CSA President/ Abraham Lincoln USA President

“The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.”
-President Jefferson Davis, CSA

It is interesting that both the CSA and USA presidents would agree that the war was not over slavery. Yet today we are told slavery was the sole cause of the war. In Jefferson Davis's farewell address to the US congress, his inaugural address in Montgomery as confederate president and second inaugural in Richmond, he explained liberty, states rights, tariffs and the founders were the main reason for states leaving the union. Jefferson barley mention slavery and only in passing in just one of the three important speeches. The south was leaving because Davis said the north fell to simple majority [Democracy not constitutional republic] what Davis called the “Tyranny of unbridled majority.” Near the end of the war Jefferson Davis sent a diplomat to both France and England to try and convince them to recognize the confederacy offering the confederacy would abolish slavery, yet keep their country. Instead what we are told to focus on is not the CSA presidents important speeches, but a speech by vice president Stevens as the sole cause for southern secession. Few things Jeff Davis and Abraham Lincoln would agree upon, but one is the war was not over slavery.

“So long as I am president . It shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the union”
-Abraham Lincoln Aug 15 1864

The confederate solder “Fought because he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded”
-James Webb Born Fighting a History of the Scoth-Irish in America

“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.
-James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense

To think the southern armies were full of non slave owning soldiers leaving their families and risking there lives so a few rich slave owners could keep there slaves is ridiculous. 80% of southern soldiers did not own slaves. In every major battle there were slave owning union soldiers fighting for the north, and non slave owning southern soldiers fighting for the south. In the book What They Fought For, 1861–1865 by James McPherson reported on his reading of hundreds of letters and diaries written by soldiers on both sides of the war on the question of what they believed they were fighting for. McPherson concluded that nearly all Confederate soldiers believed they “fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government.”As one Illinois officer explained, “We are fighting for the Union . . . a high and noble sentiment, but after all a sentiment. They are fighting for independence, and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders” “The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self-government and with expressions of a willingness to die for the cause.” An Alabamian solider wrote “When a Southerner homes is threatened the spirit of resistance is irresistible.”

“Southerners also fought for abstracts- state sovereignty, the right of secession, the constitution as they interpreted it, the concept of a southern nation different from the American nation whose values had been corrupted by Yankees”
-James McPherson Battle Cry of freedom

“The south was fighting for independence, the north to restore the union...young southerners rushed to arms to defend home and family while like their revolutionary grandfathers- seeking a new Independence ”
-James Robertson The Untold civil War Exploring The Human Side Of War National geographic

In The Confederate war by Gary W Gallagher he quotes multiple soldiers letters home as saying the reason they were fighting was because of what they saw as northern tyranny, oppression and northern invasion. In the book the common solider of the civil war, The average southern soldiers diaries and letters to home barley even mentioned slavery, much less as a reason for fighting. It was because they were defending their homes and families and country, a few said because of power of government. Thousands of Californians [non slave owning state] volunteered for the confederacy. New jersey supplied at least two confederate generals. The confederate soldiers flags mottos talked of liberty, justice, freedom, and god, not of slavery as reason to fight.

“Believe me no solider on either side gave a damn about slaves, they were fighting for other reasons entirely in their minds. Southerns thought they were fighting the second American revolution norther's thought they were fighting to hold the union together [With a few abolitionist and fire eaters on both sides].”
-Historian Shelby Foote

“I was fighting for my home, and he had no business being there”
-Virginia confederate Solider Frank Potts

“The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.”
-Florida causes of Secession

“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other....abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South.... ”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)

The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests. The CSA Constitution allowed for free trade. In Jefferson Davis inaugural speech in Montgomery Alabama he stated the following.

“An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union.”

“The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.”
-Florida Declaration of Causes of Secession

The very mature of the government was at stake in the fight over western territories. This political battle even turned to blood in Missouri/Kansas. The south was shown that even when unified, it could still be controlled by the growing urban population of the north and “mob rule” such as in the case with tariffs and the election of Lincoln. Both sides also saw the newer territories become states in the west as vital to control of congress. If these states were allowed to decide on their own slave or free, than the south might maintain agrarian, free trade, policies. If they were to all become free, than northern industrialist would dominate congress and High tariffs and internal improvements would rise.

“We had had experience of the fact, that our partner-States of the North, who were in a majority, had trampled upon the rights of the Southern minority, and we desired, as the only remedy, to dissolve the partnership......liberty is always destroyed by the multitude, in the name of liberty. Majorities within the limits of constitutional restraints are harmless, but the moment they lose sight of these restraints, the many-headed monster becomes more tyrannical, than the tyrant with a single head; numbers harden its conscience, and embolden it, in the perpetration of crime. And when this majority, in a free government, becomes a faction, or, in other words, represents certain classes and interests to the detriment of other classes, and interests, farewell to public liberty; the people must either become enslaved, or there must be a disruption of the government. ”
-Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes 1868

Between 1800-1850 the House was controlled by the north but the south could block anything from the north in the senate. However with the edition of states like Minnesota 1858 Oregon 1859 and Kansas 1861 for the first time the north controlled the senate. Lincoln said he would not allow any more slave states into the union [Southerns felt a excuse for northern political dominance of both house and senate for his wanted major tariff increases] The south had seen their political power over tariffs in recent decades decline, and now saw the attack on slavery into new territories as a attack on the whole economic system of the south by the majority or mob of the north. The south saw the loss of political power, economic power and rights granted by the constitution under threat from the majority north. a Georgian sated “we are either slaves in the union or free men out of it”

“Nothing but increasingly galling economical exploitation by the dominate sector and the rapid reduction of the south to political impotence”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery

“Equality and safety in the union are at an end”
-Howell Cobb of Georgia 1860

“The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, including slave property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening future."
-James M. McPherson Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism

“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862

Northern Violations of the Constitution

“announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.
-Florida Declaration of causes of secession

“The north sought to convert a union of brotherhood and mutual benefit into a “nation” which they would dominate in their own interests”
-Clyde Wilson University of South Carolina Professor

“We are fighting for the god given rights of liberty and independence as handed down to us in the constitution by our fathers”
-Confederate General John B Gordon to Pennsylvanian woman at York 1863

“I believe most solemley that it is for constitutional liberty”
-Confederate General Leonidas Polk June 22 1861 Reasons for Southern Secession

The south saw the north as violating the constitution in many ways. The south thought their liberties threatened by a growing northern majority and political influence. Had the constitution not been violated, and their rights maintained, there would have been no need to separate. The south saw the tariffs aimed at certain industry [southern export] as a violation of the constitution. They saw the north's attempt to use that money to benefit the Norths wanted internal improvements as another violation of the constitution. The federal government under the control of Lincoln sought to violate the 10th amendment and states rights by not allowing the western states to decide on slavery, instead the federal government would overpower the states, and violate the constitution to the benefit of northern polices. The south complained that many northern states the refusal to obey the fugitive slave laws were a violation of the constitution and recognizance of southern property.

“If the south did not protect itself against the north, its whole way of life would be destroyed”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State university Press

“Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control. They learned to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, of constitutional authority, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern; and in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between a State and the United States to those which exist between a county and the State in which it is situated and by which it was created.”
-Jefferson Davis Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)

“Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it”
-The Jackson Mississippian 1864 quoted in McPherson's Battle cry of Freedom p 833

There is even more in those threads you should really try reading them.

[nikcers]

Did Stalin forcibly breed Russians for his own enrichment? Did he keep a harem of women that he regularly raped?
Depends on what propaganda you read, the really fun ones say he tried to build a hybrid human gorilla army.

[Dr.No.]

Just wanted to point out real quick that the statue that was torn down in Durham was erected for the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy. Probably lost on these protesters was the fact that many of the soldiers that fought and died were conscripted and had no choice. Not every soldier that fought for the Confederacy believed in slavery or the cause of the Confederacy, just as not every soldier that fought for the North believed in a war to end slavery and the cause of the Union.

Should Germany erect statues to Nazi soldiers? After all, many Germans were forced to fight in the war and didn't believe in the Nazi ideology.

[Dr.No.]

If you really want to know the truth try reading these threads.
Causes of Southern Seccession- the Cotton States (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States)

Causes of Southern Seccession- the Upper South (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512620-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Upper-South)



Crap. Lies like this:


The majority was paid by the south given its inport/export agrarian economy. This the south thought was unconstitutional for the government to aim at a section or industry of the economy specifically for a tax.


There are no taxes on exports. The South was hardly an import economy; the North paid the vast majority of the import taxes.

[Blueskies]

*snip*

You're quoting among other things, secondary sources that interpret and twist the situation as they like.

The South was absolutely fighting for state's rights. It's just those rights were primarily the rights to own other people as slaves.

[nikcers]

Should Germany erect statues to Nazi soldiers? After all, many Germans were forced to fight in the war and didn't believe in the Nazi ideology.
Your right, lets condemn our military for doing what they are ordered to do. Maybe the double think will cause them to just kill themselves.

[Swordsmyth]

Crap. Lies like this:



There are no taxes on exports. The South was hardly an import economy; the North paid the vast majority of the import taxes.

The south was paying the IMPORT tariffs. It's exports were harmed when other countries responded to the excessive tariffs with higher tariffs of their own.

[Swordsmyth]

You're quoting among other things, secondary sources that interpret and twist the situation as they like.

The South was absolutely fighting for state's rights. It's just those rights were primarily the rights to own other people as slaves.

Did you even read what I posted? The "upper south" only seceded because Lincoln declared war on the seceding states.

You REALLY don't want to learn do you?

[Anti Federalist]

Should Germany erect statues to Nazi soldiers? After all, many Germans were forced to fight in the war and didn't believe in the Nazi ideology.

A quick screwgle search indicates that there are more than a few.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6822/270501744.12/0_e41c6_516d0c29_XL.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ftq0OncY7a4/TPVj4CFNg4I/AAAAAAAAAj4/p8M4FKUPJBc/s1600/CPIMG_4464.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

On the afternoon of February 28, 1861, President Davis sent his first veto message to the Confederate Congress. Congress had passed legislation enabling the constitutional ban and detailing punishment for those convicted. It spelled out the options for return of the Free Africans to Africa. Davis said he had carefully considered this bill “in relation to the slave trade and to punish persons offending therein”. He objected to the option that if the Free Africans could not be returned to Africa and all other options insuring their freedom could not be met, then these Free Africans could be sold on the internal Slave markets.

Davis wrote, “This latter provision seems to me in opposition to the policy declared in the Constitution, the prohibition of African Negroes, and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of that object.” He, therefore, vetoed the legislation. There was no attempt to override.

Establishing the Slave Trade would be a critical leg in upholding a Slave Republic. Instead, here was the first American Constitutional Mandate to end this noxious commerce that New England had begun and was still engaged in at this very time.

1.9.2 (Congress can bar slaves coming from States remaining in the United States) “Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.”

There was no need for this in 1787. All the original States were involved with domestic slavery and New England was heavily into the Transatlantic Slave Trade. In 1861 this was a safeguard against Union slave states outlawing slavery and the owners “selling South”. At this time there were 7 Slave States in the Confederacy and 8 Slave States in the United States.

“Selling South” happened whenever a Northern State outlawed slavery and did not require the masters to free their slaves within their State. The irrefutable truth about Northern abolition is that emancipation was not always required and slaves were often sold South. That brought double relief to the North: 1) their moral feelings felt cleansed, and 2) with fewer Black people about, White people could not be “corrupted”.

1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.

While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.

So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.

The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.

Antebellum Americans in the South, with few exceptions, held slavery a moral evil, an inherited struggle that was also a structural pillar of its culture and wealth. A monumental societal program of practical and civic education beyond the funds of individual States was needed so freed slaves could live successfully as Free people. So personal manumission remained the norm. Jefferson had planned the territories would be a place where free Blacks could go and set up new lives for themselves. But the North would tolerate no assimilation.

Northern political and commercial houses knew slavery and the Slave Trade was a continuing basis of Northern wealth as well. But that truth never stopped them from espousing their vanity of self-elation. Their wealth and power class never proposed a program of emancipation and assimilation into American society with or without national funds. The cost and human endeavors of Black freedom would remain Southern issues.

One Northern abolitionist, who understood this peculiar dilemma over the struggle for Black freedom, after visiting Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina in 1854, wrote the following:

“What had the South done to injure us, except through our sensibilities on the subject of slavery? What have we done to her, but admonish, threaten, and indict her before God, excommunicate her, stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her Christians and ministers odious in other lands? And now that she has availed herself of a northern measure (the Fugitive Slave laws) for her defense, we are ready to move the country from its foundations. We ought to reflect, whether we have not been enforcing our moral sentiments upon the South in offensive ways, so as to constitute that oppression which makes even a wise man mad.

“All this time we have overlooked the intrinsic difficulties of the evil which the South has had to contend with; have disagreed among ourselves about sin per se, and about the question of immediate or gradual emancipation, and yet have expected the South to be clear on these points, and to act promptly. …. What has she ever done, except in self-defense, in our long quarrel, which, upon reconciliation, would rankle in our memory, and make it hard for us to forgive and forget? Positively, not one thing. We have been the assailants, she the mark; we the prosecutors, she the defendant; we the accusers, she the self-justifying respondent.

“Unless we choose to live in perpetual war, we must prevent and punish all attempts to decoy slaves from their masters. Whatever our repugnance to slavery may be, there is a law of the land, a Constitution, to which we must submit, or employ suitable means to change. While it remains, all our appeals to a “higher law” are fanaticism.” Nehemiah Adams, D.D. “A Southside View of Slavery” pp.127-128.

Rhett and his associates were not aiming to keep slaves in slavery. No one argued against State manumission laws. The hard truth is that the Gulf States had suffered more than their share of abolitionist wrath. The hounds of rabid abolitionism including clergy, urging slaves to revolt and murder for freedom never left Southern ears. Rhett and Cobb wanted to insure the hounds would not return with the admittance of Free States.

Since the United States and the Confederacy were now separate governments, no fugitive slave laws would apply to both unless a treaty were signed between them. The chances that might happen were less than minimal. North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas would have no obligation to protect the CSA slave owner’s property rights or deliver the slave back.

For this simple reason (among others) astute observers of the political scene such as Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, saw the Gulf States’ secession as the death-knell of slavery. He was more than likely correct. Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens agreed. Hardly assurance to those who insist the Gulf States seceded to create and expand a Slave Empire.

Much more at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/slavery-in-the-confederate-constitution/

[Swordsmyth]

Confederate EmancipationUltimately, of course, Confederate emancipation was a failure, as modern-day critics like Levine love to crow. Instead of solving the problem of slavery themselves, as Southerners had always struggled to do in and out of the Union, slavery was abolished in the worst way possible: as an unintended consequence of a deadly, devastating conquest by outsiders with no interest in the welfare of black or white Southerners. Virginian slaveholder Thomas Jefferson’s fear, that emancipation would be a ‘bloody process…excited and conducted’ by an enemy in wartime, rather than a change ‘brought on by the generous energy of our own minds,’ had come true. The significance of Confederate emancipation is not in its effect, however, but in its intent. As Abbeville Institute Chair Donald Livingston concludes, ‘This failure does not take away from what we learn about the character of the Southern people: that they had the moral and political resources to effect emancipation when the right political circumstances presented themselves.’ Surely, the fact that Southerners were willing to make the sacrifice at all—no other people in history living among slaves had ever considered freeing them, much less arming them!—and not the trite observation of ‘too little, too late,’ is the moral of this heroic story.

More at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/confederate-emancipation/

[Swordsmyth]

Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern States. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? This was significant to people who knew that their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the States.
It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure. Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington’s sword as a talisman. In Brown’s baggage was a constitution making him dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.
It is significant that not one single slave joined Brown’s attempted blow against slavery. It was entirely an affair of outsiders. Significant also is that six Northern rich men financed Brown and that some elements of the North celebrated him as a saint, an agent of God, ringing the church bells at his execution. Even more significantly, Brown was merely acting out the venomous hatred of Southerners that had characterized some parts of Northern society for many years previously.
Could this relentless barrage of hatred directed by Northerners against their Southern fellow citizens have perhaps had something to do with the secession impulse? That was the opinion of Horatio Seymour, Democratic governor of New York. In a public address he pointed to the enormity of making war on Southern fellow citizens who had always been exceptionally loyal Americans, but who had been driven to secession by New England fanaticism.
Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.
Advocates of the “slavery and nothing but slavery” interpretation also like to mention a speech in which Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens is supposed to have said that white supremacy was the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy. The speech was ad hoc and badly reported, but so what? White supremacy was also the cornerstone of the United States. A law of the first Congress established that only white people could be naturalized as citizens. Abraham Lincoln’s Illinois forbade black people to enter the State and deprived those who were there of citizenship rights.
Instead of quoting two cherry-picked quotations, serious historians will look into more of the vast documentation of the time. For instance, in determining what the war was “about,” why not consider Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address, the resolutions of the Confederate Congress, numerous speeches by Southern spokesmen of the time as they explained their departure from the U.S. Congress and spoke to their constituents about the necessity of secession. Or for that matter look at the entire texts of the secession documents.
Our advocates of slavery causation practice the same superficial and deceitful tactics in viewing their side of the fight. They rely mostly on a few pretty phrases from a few of Lincoln’s prettier speeches to account for the winning side in the Great Civil War. But what were Northerners really saying?
I am going to do something radical. I am going to review what Northerners had to say about the war. Not a single Southern source, Southern opinion, or Southern accusation will I present. Just the words of Northerners (and a few foreign observers) on what the war was “about.”
Abraham Lincoln was at pains to assure the South that he intended no threat to slavery. He said he understood Southerners and that Northerners would be exactly like them living in the same circumstances. He said that while slavery was not a good thing (which most Southerners agreed with) he had no power to interfere with slavery and would not know what to do if he had the power. He acquiesced in a proposed 13th Amendment that would have guaranteed slavery into the 20th century. Later, he famously told Horace Greeley that his purpose was to save the Union, for which he would free all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation itself promised a continuance of slavery to States that would lay down their arms.
All Lincoln wanted was to prevent slavery in any territories, future States, which then might become Southern and vote against Northern control of the Treasury and federal legislation. From the anti-slavery perspective this is a highly immoral position. At the time of the Missouri Compromise, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said that restricting the spread of slavery was a false, politically motivated position. The best thing for the welfare of African Americans and their eventual emancipation was to allow them to spread as thinly as possible.
Delegation after delegation came to Lincoln in early days to beg him to do something to avoid war. Remember that 61% of the American people had voted against this great hero of democracy, which ought to have led him to a conciliatory frame of mind. He invariably replied that he could not do without “his revenue.” He said nary a word about slavery. Most of “his revenue” was collected at the Southern ports because of the tariff to protect Northern industry and most of it was spent in the North. Lincoln could not do without that revenue and vowed his determination to collect it without interruption by secession. He knew that his political backing rested largely on New England/New York money men and the rising power of the new industrialists of Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago who were aggressively demanding that the federal government sponsor and support them. The revenue also provided the patronage of offices and contracts for his hungry supporters, without which his party would dwindle away.
Discussing the reaction to secession, the New York Times editorialized: “The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.” A Manchester, N.H., paper was one of hundreds of others that agreed, saying: “It is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress officially declared that the war WAS NOT AGAINST SLAVERY but to preserve the Union. (By preserving the Union, of course, they actually meant not preserving the real Union but ensuring their control of the federal machinery.)
At the Hampton Roads peace conference a few months before Appomattox, Lincoln suggested to the Confederate representatives that if they ceased fighting then the Emancipation Proclamation could be left to the courts to survive or fall. Alexander Stephens, unlike Lincoln, really cared about the fate of the black people and asked Lincoln what was to become of them if freed in their present unlettered and propertyless condition. Lincoln’s reply: “Root, hog, or die.” A line from a minstrel song suggesting that they should survive as best they could. Lincoln routinely used the N-word all his life, as did most Northerners.


The South, supposedly fighting for slavery, did not respond to any of these offers for the continuance of slavery. In fact, wise Southerners like Jefferson Davis realized that if war came it would likely disrupt slavery as it had during the first war of independence. That did not in the least alter his desire for the independence and self-government that was the birthright of Americans. Late in the war he sent a special emissary to offer emancipation if European powers would break the illegal blockade.
Saying that the South was fighting only to defend the evils of slavery is a deceitful back-handed way to suggest that, therefore the North was fighting to rid America of the evils of slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, secession did not necessarily require war against the South. That was a choice. Slavery had existed for over two hundred years and there was no Northern majority in favour of emancipation. Emancipation was not the result of a moral crusade against evil but a byproduct of a ruthless war of invasion and conquest. Not one single act of Lincoln and the North in the war was motivated by moral considerations in regard to slavery.
Even if slavery was a reason for secession, it does not explain why the North made a war of invasion and conquest on a people who only wanted to be let alone to live as they had always lived. The question of why the North made war is not even asked by our current historians. They assume without examination that the North is always right and the South is always evil. They do not look at the abundant Northern evidence that might shed light on the matter.
When we speak about the causes of war should we not pay some attention to the motives of the attacker and not blame everything on the people who were attacked and conquered? To say that the war was “caused” by the South’s defense of slavery is logically comparable to the assertion that World War II was caused by Poland resisting attack by Germany. People who think this way harbor an unacknowledged assumption: Southerners are not fellow citizens deserving of tolerance but bad people and deserve to be conquered. The South and its people are the property of the North to do with as they wish. Therefore no other justification is needed. That Leninist attitude is very much still alive judging by the abuse I receive in print and by e-mail. The abuse never discusses evidence, only denounces what is called “Neo-Confederate” and “Lost Cause” mythology. These are both political terms of abuse that have no real meaning and are designed to silence your enemy unheard.
Let us look at the U.S. Senate in February 1863. Senator John Sherman of Ohio, one of the most prominent of the Republican supporters of war against the South, has the floor. He is arguing in favour of a bill to establish a system of national banks and national bank currency. He declared that this bill was the most important business pending before the country. It was so important, he said, that he would see all the slaves remain slaves if it could be passed. Let me repeat this. He would rather leave all the slaves in bondage rather than lose the national bank bill. This was a few weeks after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation.
What about this bill? Don’t be deceived by the terminology. So-called National Banks were to be the property of favoured groups of private capitalists. They were to have as capital interest-bearing government bonds at a 50% discount. The bank notes that they were to issue were to be the national currency. The banks, not the government, had control of this currency. That is, these favoured capitalists had the immense power and profit of controlling the money and credit of the country. Crony capitalism that has been the main feature of the American regime up to this very moment.
Senator Sherman’s brother, General Sherman, had recently been working his way across Mississippi, not fighting armed enemies but destroying the infrastructure and the food and housing of white women and children and black people. When the houses are burned, the livestock taken away or killed, the barns with tools and seed crops destroyed, fences torn down, stored food and standing crops destroyed, the black people will starve as well as the whites. General Sherman was heard to say: “Damn the *******! I wish they were anywhere but here and could be kept at work.”
General Sherman was not fighting for the emancipation of black people. He was a proto-fascist who wanted to crush citizens who had the gall to disobey the government.
The gracious Mrs. General Sherman agreed. She wrote her husband thus:

“I hope this may not be a war of emancipation but of extermination, & that all under the influence of the foul fiend may be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing.”
Not a word about the slaves.
As the war began, the famous abolitionist Theodore Weld declared that the South had to be wiped out because it is “the foe to Northern industry—to our mines, our manufactures, our commerce.” Nothing said about benefit to the slaves. The famous abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher enjoyed a European tour while the rivers of blood were flowing in America. Asked by a British audience why the North did not simply let the South go, Beecher replied, “Why not let the South go? O that the South would go! But then they must leave us their lands.”
Then there is the Massachusetts Colonel who wrote his governor from the South in January 1862:

“The thing we seek is permanent dominion. . . . They think we mean to take their slaves? Bah! We must take their ports, their mines, their water power, the very soil they plow . . . .”
Seizing Southern resources was a common theme among advocates of the Union. Southerners were not fellow citizens of a nation. They were obstacles to be disposed of so Yankees could use their resources to suit themselves. The imperialist impulse was nakedly and unashamedly expressed before, during, and after the war.
Charles Dickens, who had spent much time in the U.S. a few years before the war, told readers of his monthly magazine in 1862: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Another British observer, John Stuart Mill, hoped the war would be against slavery and was disappointed. “The North, it seems,” Mill wrote, “have no more objections to slavery than the South have.”


How about these curiosities from the greatest of Northern intellectuals, Emerson. He records in his journals: “But the secret, the esoteric of abolition—a secret, too, from the abolitionist—is, that the negro and the negro-holder are really of one party.” And again, “The abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery, but because he wishes to abolish the black man.” Emerson had previously predicted that African Americans were like the Dodo, incapable of surviving without care and doomed to disappear. Another abolitionist, James G. Birney, says: “The negroes are part of the enemy.”
Indeed a staple of Northern discourse was that black people would and should disappear, leaving the field to righteous New England Anglo-Saxons. My friend Howard White remarks: “Whatever his faults regarding slavery, the Southerner never found the existence of Africans in his world per se a scandal. That particular foolishness had its roots in the regions further North.”
In 1866, Boston had a meeting of abolitionists and strong Unionists. The speaker, a clergymen, compared the South to a sewer. It was to be drained of its present inhabitants and “to be filled up with Yankee immigration . . . and upon that foundation would be constructed a new order of things. To be reconstructed, the South must be Northernized, and until that was done, the work of reconstruction could not be accomplished.” Not a word about a role for African Americans in this program.
One of the most important aspects of the elimination of slavery is seldom mentioned. The absence of any care or planning for the future of black Americans. The Russian Czar pointed this out to an American visitor as a flaw that invalidated the fruits of emancipation. We could fill ten books with evidence of Northern mistreatment of black people during and after the war. Emancipation as it occurred was not a happy experience. To borrow Kirkpatrick Sale’s term, it was a Hell. I recommend Kirk’s book Emancipation Hell (http://www.shotwellpublishing.com/emancipation-hell.html) and Paul Graham’s work When the Yankees Come (http://www.shotwellpublishing.com/when-the-yankees-come.html),

This subject is just beginning to be explored seriously. Wrote one Northerner of Sherman’s men, they “are impatient of darkies, and annoyed to see them pampered, petted and spoiled.” Ambrose Bierce, a hard-fighting Union soldier for the entire war, said that the black people he saw were virtual slaves as the concubines and servants of Union officers. Many black people took to the roads not because of an intangible emancipation but because their homes and living had been destroyed. They collected in camps which had catastrophic rates or mortality. The army asked some Northern governors to take some of these people, at least temporarily. The governors of Massachusetts and Illinois, Lincoln’s most fervid supporters, went ballistic. This was unacceptable. The black people would be uncomfortable in the North and much happier in the South, said the longtime abolitionist Governor Andrew of Massachusetts. Happier in the South than in Massachusetts?
What about those black soldiers in the Northern army, used mainly for labour and forlorn hopes like the Crater? A historian quotes a Northern observer of U.S. Army activities in occupied coastal Carolina in 1864. Generals declared their intention to recruit “every able-bodied male in the department.” Writes the Northern observer: “The atrocious impressments of boys of fourteen and responsible men with large dependent families, and the shooting down of negroes who resisted, were common occurrences.”

More at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyde-wilson-library/why-the-war-was-not-about-slavery/

[FunkBuddha]

Not just down - up. These fools have entirely lost their minds.


Vigilante protesters start DIGGING UP body of Confederate general Nathan Forrest from his grave (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173456/Vigilante-protesters-start-DIGGING-body-Confederate-general-Nathan-Forrest-KKK-leader-grave.html)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/24/14/2ACE44CD00000578-0-Threats_Isaac_Richmond_center_said_that_the_group_ would_return_w-a-21_1437744260476.jpg


Forrest was postwar activist for black civil rights (http://rutherfordtnhistory.org/remembering-rutherford-forrest-was-postwar-activist-for-black-civil-rights/)


When Forrest died in 1877, Memphis newspapers reported that his funeral procession was over two miles long. The throng of mourners was estimated to include over 3,000 black citizens of Memphis.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

And one of the most ironic things about all of this. . . in the last 50 years and currently, the U.S.of A. is one of the biggest causes of slavery, death, and women/children sold into servitude around the globe.

Yet, the only people seeming to care about that are Ron Paul supporters, go figure

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

but hey, you gots ta love that easy credit, right boys ! <sarcastic>

[FunkBuddha]

I wonder when folks are going to start demanding that the statues of Albert Pike be removed? Or that the rites for Scottish Rite Freemasonry that he authored be disavowed.

[gaazn]

The only thing you need to teach your children about the Civil War is:

"The Civil War was caused by politicians."

Seriously that's all you need to know.

[phill4paul]

Crews remove Baltimore Confederate monuments overnight...


BALTIMORE —
It appears Baltimore's Confederate four monuments are coming down faster than previously thought.

Baltimore's mayor and City Council members differed over how to remove the city's four Confederate monuments, but crews were seen early Wednesday removing statues.

About a dozen city crews and private contractors were seen in Wyman Park, removing the Lee and Jackson Monument. Crews started getting ready around midnight Tuesday. By 3 a.m., a crane hoisted the monument from its pedestal. By 3:45 a.m., the monument was transferred to a flatbed truck.

The Roger Taney statue in Mount Vernon had already been removed by the time 11 News arrived at 2:30 a.m.

It was not immediately known where the monuments were going.

Mayor Catherine Pugh is expected to speak at 10 a.m. about the monuments. All four have been taken down.

On Monday night, the City Council cited events in Charlottesville, Virginia, when it adopted a resolution calling for the immediate destruction of Confederate monuments.

Baltimore has four Confederate monuments that include a Confederate women's monument in Bishop Square Park, a monument for soldiers and sailors on Mount Royal Avenue, the Lee and Jackson Monument in the Wyman Park Dell and a statue of Roger Taney that sits just north of the Washington Monument.

Mayor Catherine Pugh has said that she has talked with contractors about logistics, contacted the Maryland Historical Trust for permissions and identified Confederate cemeteries to send some statues to.

http://www.wbaltv.com/article/crews-remove-confederate-statues-in-baltimore-overnight/12017831

[shakey1]

Officials in several states are calling for the removal of public monuments that have become controversial symbols of the Confederacy, driven by the national outcry over the violence in Charlottesville, Va.

This fixes nothing.

[tod evans]

This fixes nothing.

It's not about 'fixin'......

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

of course the plan is not to fix anything. . .

it is to polarize, demonize, divide and conquer

[juleswin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2xUwxOfSiY

Arrested and charged with felony.

[phill4paul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2xUwxOfSiY

Arrested and charged with felony.

Good. But, the question remains, why did the cops allow it to happen? Officials suspected it would be targeted and coated the statue with cooking oil so nobody could scale it. The statue was situated right outside of the courthouse. They can't claim they didn't know it was happening.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

this kind of photo-op gives the " legitimacy " that folks on both sides are looking for to jump in and fight for their cause.

[Anti Federalist]

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/08/confederate-statue-pulled-down-AP-640x480.jpg

[devil21]

of course the plan is not to fix anything. . .

it is to polarize, demonize, divide and conquer

Don't forget the part about erasing the physical reminders of how the country was stolen during and after the Civil War. Martial law/military rule/state of war has been in effect ever since the Union was dissolved by secession. Gold fringed flag seen everywhere is a military flag and guess who the enemy in that ongoing war is?

[Anti Federalist]

I am woman, (?) hear me wheeze.


http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/08/confederate-statue-pulled-down-AP-640x480.jpg

[jmdrake]

You are showing your ignorance YANKEE.

You do understand that the confederates enslaved poor white farmers by instituting a draft and then exempting slave owners from the draft right? The confederacy was about as anti liberty as you can get. Watch "The Free State of Jones" if you want to really be informed.

[Swordsmyth]

You do understand that the confederates enslaved poor white farmers by instituting a draft and then exempting slave owners from the draft right? The confederacy was about as anti liberty as you can get. Watch "The Free State of Jones" if you want to really be informed.
The North also let the rich out of the draft, America was never perfect but the South was better than the North.

[jmdrake]

The only thing you need to teach your children about the Civil War is:

"The Civil War was caused by politicians."

Seriously that's all you need to know.

^This.

Guns and Roses had the right idea.

What we've got here is..failure to communicate...
So men you just can't reach.
So you get what he last week.
Which is the way he wants it.
So he gets it.
I don't like it anymore than you.



I don't need no civil war.....
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor....
It turns the whole world into a....human grocery store...ain't that fresh.
I don't need no civil war.....


And some idiots used to call Guns and Roses racist. Like a racist rock and roll band would hire a black lead guitar player.

Best antiwar song ever IMO.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9VhD4SccSE

[Anti Federalist]

The Civil War was not.

It was a war of secession.

An important and critical distinction, I think.

[jmdrake]

The North also let the rich out of the draft, America was never perfect but the South was better than the North.

The bastards in the south instituted the draft first. And they started the damn war. The south was much worse than the north. That's why sections of the south seceded from the confederacy. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones" and educate yourself. I've lived in the south my whole damn life so I'm talking from experience and not "yankee ignorance." Southern planters didn't give a damn about the white dirt farmers they either suckered or forced at gun point to fight for their immoral and illegitimate cause. Hell, go back to before the civil war and read about the case of negro Will. He was a black slave who had invented a new hoe. (Farming implement, not street walker). The white overseer demanded Will let another slave use his hoe. Will was like "Screw you! This is my hoe!" The overseer fought Will and Will kicked his ass so bad that he died. Guess who paid for Will's defense? The plantation owner. Why? Because as property, Will was worth more than the overseer. Will got off. Later Will killed another slave. Guess what happened then? Then owner hung Will. Why? Because Will destroyed his property. Southerners who didn't own slaves were nothing but the hoes (as in street walkers) for the southerners who did own slaves. Once the south lost the civil war economic prosperity in the form of manufacturing and agricultural diversity came to the south and everyone was better off. Losing the civil war was the best thing that could have happened to the south. The south was brought into the industrial age kicking and screaming but the it found out "Hey...this ain't so bad after all." It's kind of like Japan's economy taking off after losing World War II.

[Swordsmyth]

The bastards in the south instituted the draft first. And they started the damn war. The south was much worse than the north. That's why sections of the south seceded from the confederacy. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones" and educate yourself. I've lived in the south my whole damn life so I'm talking from experience and not "yankee ignorance." Southern planters didn't give a damn about the white dirt farmers they either suckered or forced at gun point to fight for their immoral and illegitimate cause. Hell, go back to before the civil war and read about the case of negro Will. He was a black slave who had invented a new hoe. (Farming implement, not street walker). The white overseer demanded Will let another slave use his hoe. Will was like "Screw you! This is my hoe!" The overseer fought Will and Will kicked his ass so bad that he died. Guess who paid for Will's defense? The plantation owner. Why? Because as property, Will was worth more than the overseer. Will got off. Later Will killed another slave. Guess what happened then? Then owner hung Will. Why? Because Will destroyed his property. Southerners who didn't own slaves were nothing but the hoes (as in street walkers) for the southerners who did own slaves. Once the south lost the civil war economic prosperity in the form of manufacturing and agricultural diversity came to the south and everyone was better off. Losing the civil war was the best thing that could have happened to the south. The south was brought into the industrial age kicking and screaming but the it found out "Hey...this ain't so bad after all." It's kind of like Japan's economy taking off after losing World War II.
You are insane, the rich in the North were as bad and worse, the North started the war by refusing to remove northern troops from Southern soil, the people of the South were slaughtered and their assets destroyed or stolen, the carpetbaggers brought industrialization and proceeded to exploit the southerners worse than the Planters ever did.

[jmdrake]

The Civil War was not.

It was a war of secession.

An important and critical distinction, I think.

I think it's a distinction that makes no freaking difference at all. The south could have legitimately seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and the only thing on the table was tariffs. But they ran like cowardly dogs when Jackson threatened to hang the secessionists. Then, when tariffs were at record lows, but slavery was threatened by an anti slavery party taking over the presidency, then they seceded. And when parts of the south decided they wanted no part of the confederacy their right to secede was not respected. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones." That was a libertarian state that was created by poor whites who joined up with escaped slaves to form what is probably the only libertarian county to ever exist in the United States of America. No slavery was allowed and no taxes either. Each person kept what he grew himself. People voluntarily banded together for the common defense. And they kicked the confederates asses. That is the kind of insurrection that libertarians should support. But I bet you never even heard of it. I know I didn't until I saw the movie.

I'll be honest. I have more respect for neo-Nazis. What did a Nazi ever do to me? Black soldiers and airmen that were captured by the Nazis were treated better than they were by the U.S. Army. Back in high school I had to just suck it up and ignore all of the confederate hats and belt buckles and whatnot. I ignored stupid comments like "I know it would have been bad for you Drake but we could have won the civil war if..." No idiot. It would have been bad for all of us. The south would have remained the ignorant, non-industrialized, agrarian backwater that it was before the civil war. That's why the South lost the Civil War. The North ultimately out produced the South. The outcome was inevitable. It's just like U.S. industrialization out performed German and Japanese industrialization in World War II. In high school as a computer geek I hung out in the computer lab all the time. One day I saw this kid drawing a swastika using computer graphics. I was like "Why the hell are you doing that?" He was like "I'm German. This is my German heritage." I started to respond, then I thought about it. I had excused the confederate flag as "southern hertitage" and I was going to bust a gut over the swastika? What the hell for? Nazis never did anything to me or mine. I watched a documentary on "Bo Jangles" Jackson the other day. It was starring Gregory Hines. He showed the absolute brillance of that man. Bo Jangles had been regulated to crappy "step-in-fetch-it" roles his entire life just because he was black. He basically made Shirley Temple's career. And, to give southerner's some credit, he did get better treatment in Vaudville than he did in Hollywood. Oh...but World War II came, the U.S. was getting its ass kicked, "Tokyo Rose" was broadcasting to black GIs "Why are you fighting us for the U.S. when we aren't mistreating you like they are." To get blacks behind the war effort, the U.S. War Department asked Bo Jangles and other black performers to make a film blacks could be proud of and Stormy Weather was the result. So again, why am I supposed to be angry at the neo-Nazis but sympathetic to the neo-confederates?

The South is still but hurt over a war that's end result brought it undreamed of economic prosperity. Slavery just doesn't work inside factories. Far too much can go wrong. You take a screw off a plow and maybe it breaks and the slaves get a day off and can go swimming. You take a screw off a foundry and the whole thing could fall over, men could die and the entire factory could be destroyed. The South needed slavery to end but they were just too stupid to realize it. And once slavery ended and the South industrialized, all of a sudden tarriffs became a non issue too. Many a confederate had wearing southerner who today works in a factor wants Donald Trump to do something about our trade imballance. I'm not saying protectionism is good. I am saying that people who think the south was acting off of some type of economic libertarianism are deluding themselves. You can't be libertarian and support slavery. And the South absolutely supported slavery. You see that in their declarations of secession. You see it in the southern constitution. When I started looking into this question decades ago I had an open mind. My high school history teacher was a southern apologist so all I heard was the "it was just about tariffs" argument. Oh, and he was also dumb as hell. I would get a test back with a C on it and by the time we got through correcting it in class, and I showed from the book that he was wrong, I had an A. This happened repeatedly. When I was older and had access to the internet, I did my own research, read all the documents I could, and came to the inescapable conclusion that slavery was a but for cause for southern secession. So a big capital FU to the confederacy and all it stands for. Does that mean I support tearing down confederate monuments? No. What the hell is the point? How does doing that do anything about any real problems facing black people today or anybody else for that matter? It is kind of odd that, as far as I know, we are the only country with monuments all over the place to the losing side in a war, but hell, this is America and we are bat guano crazy.

/rant

[heavenlyboy34]

The bastards in the south instituted the draft first. And they started the damn war. The south was much worse than the north. That's why sections of the south seceded from the confederacy. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones" and educate yourself. I've lived in the south my whole damn life so I'm talking from experience and not "yankee ignorance." Southern planters didn't give a damn about the white dirt farmers they either suckered or forced at gun point to fight for their immoral and illegitimate cause. Hell, go back to before the civil war and read about the case of negro Will. He was a black slave who had invented a new hoe. (Farming implement, not street walker). The white overseer demanded Will let another slave use his hoe. Will was like "Screw you! This is my hoe!" The overseer fought Will and Will kicked his ass so bad that he died. Guess who paid for Will's defense? The plantation owner. Why? Because as property, Will was worth more than the overseer. Will got off. Later Will killed another slave. Guess what happened then? Then owner hung Will. Why? Because Will destroyed his property. Southerners who didn't own slaves were nothing but the hoes (as in street walkers) for the southerners who did own slaves. Once the south lost the civil war economic prosperity in the form of manufacturing and agricultural diversity came to the south and everyone was better off. Losing the civil war was the best thing that could have happened to the south. The south was brought into the industrial age kicking and screaming but the it found out "Hey...this ain't so bad after all." It's kind of like Japan's economy taking off after losing World War II.

Because the ends always justify the means. :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

You are insane

No. I am informed. You are not. I'm going to try to make it a point not to argue with ignorant people. The documentation is out there for anyone who wants to know the truth. The South seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. They said that's why they were seceding. And before any blood was shed on "Southern soil", Southern pro slavery terrorists shed blood in "bloody Kansas." And if the South gave a crap about liberty, when people in the South wanted to secede from the South, the southern states tried to put down their secession with violence. I pointed that out to you in my last post and instead of addressing it like an adult, you decided to become a child and resort to name calling. That proves that you have lost the argument.

[jmdrake]

Because the ends always justify the means. :rolleyes:

What's the justification for the southern "means" or "ends"? :rolleyes: right back at you. The Southern states were hypocrites that didn't believe in the right of secession of actual libertarian groups that didn't want to be part of the confederacy. The Southern states first instituted the draft, enslaving poor whites to fight in a rich mans war, then turned around and exempted slave owners from fighting. Note they didn't just exempt rich people! They only exempted slave owners! So if you were rich but had a conscience and didn't own slaves you were still subject to the draft! Where is the morality in that?

Again, explain to me why I should be against neo-Nazis but complacent with southern apologists? What did the Nazis ever to do me or anyone like me? Sieg Heil!

[Swordsmyth]

I think it's a distinction that makes no freaking difference at all. The south could have legitimately seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and the only thing on the table was tariffs. But they ran like cowardly dogs when Jackson threatened to hang the secessionists. Then, when tariffs were at record lows, but slavery was threatened by an anti slavery party taking over the presidency, then they seceded. And when parts of the south decided they wanted no part of the confederacy their right to secede was not respected. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones." That was a libertarian state that was created by poor whites who joined up with escaped slaves to form what is probably the only libertarian county to ever exist in the United States of America. No slavery was allowed and no taxes either. Each person kept what he grew himself. People voluntarily banded together for the common defense. And they kicked the confederates asses. That is the kind of insurrection that libertarians should support. But I bet you never even heard of it. I know I didn't until I saw the movie.

I'll be honest. I have more respect for neo-Nazis. What did a Nazi ever do to me? Black soldiers and airmen that were captured by the Nazis were treated better than they were by the U.S. Army. Back in high school I had to just suck it up and ignore all of the confederate hats and belt buckles and whatnot. I ignored stupid comments like "I know it would have been bad for you Drake but we could have won the civil war if..." No idiot. It would have been bad for all of us. The south would have remained the ignorant, non-industrialized, agrarian backwater that it was before the civil war. That's why the South lost the Civil War. The North ultimately out produced the South. The outcome was inevitable. It's just like U.S. industrialization out performed German and Japanese industrialization in World War II. In high school as a computer geek I hung out in the computer lab all the time. One day I saw this kid drawing a swastika using computer graphics. I was like "Why the hell are you doing that?" He was like "I'm German. This is my German heritage." I started to respond, then I thought about it. I had excused the confederate flag as "southern hertitage" and I was going to bust a gut over the swastika? What the hell for? Nazis never did anything to me or mine. I watched a documentary on "Bo Jangles" Jackson the other day. It was starring Gregory Hines. He showed the absolute brillance of that man. Bo Jangles had been regulated to crappy "step-in-fetch-it" roles his entire life just because he was black. He basically made Shirley Temple's career. And, to give southerner's some credit, he did get better treatment in Vaudville than he did in Hollywood. Oh...but World War II came, the U.S. was getting its ass kicked, "Tokyo Rose" was broadcasting to black GIs "Why are you fighting us for the U.S. when we aren't mistreating you like they are." To get blacks behind the war effort, the U.S. War Department asked Bo Jangles and other black performers to make a film blacks could be proud of and Stormy Weather was the result. So again, why am I supposed to be angry at the neo-Nazis but sympathetic to the neo-confederates?

The South is still but hurt over a war that's end result brought it undreamed of economic prosperity. Slavery just doesn't work inside factories. Far too much can go wrong. You take a screw off a plow and maybe it breaks and the slaves get a day off and can go swimming. You take a screw off a foundry and the whole thing could fall over, men could die and the entire factory could be destroyed. The South needed slavery to end but they were just too stupid to realize it. And once slavery ended and the South industrialized, all of a sudden tarriffs became a non issue too. Many a confederate had wearing southerner who today works in a factor wants Donald Trump to do something about our trade imballance. I'm not saying protectionism is good. I am saying that people who think the south was acting off of some type of economic libertarianism are deluding themselves. You can't be libertarian and support slavery. And the South absolutely supported slavery. You see that in their declarations of secession. You see it in the southern constitution. When I started looking into this question decades ago I had an open mind. My high school history teacher was a southern apologist so all I heard was the "it was just about tariffs" argument. Oh, and he was also dumb as hell. I would get a test back with a C on it and by the time we got through correcting it in class, and I showed from the book that he was wrong, I had an A. This happened repeatedly. When I was older and had access to the internet, I did my own research, read all the documents I could, and came to the inescapable conclusion that slavery was a but for cause for southern secession. So a big capital FU to the confederacy and all it stands for. Does that mean I support tearing down confederate monuments? No. What the hell is the point? How does doing that do anything about any real problems facing black people today or anybody else for that matter? It is kind of odd that, as far as I know, we are the only country with monuments all over the place to the losing side in a war, but hell, this is America and we are bat guano crazy.

/rant
There is so much that you are right about and so much you are wrong about.
I think the best thing to do is look to the future and the principles we agree about.

[jmdrake]

There is so much that you are right about and so much you are wrong about.
I think the best thing to do is look to the future and the principles we agree about.

Okay. Here's what we probably agree on. This is just a damn distraction. Tearing down statues is symbolic crap that changes nothing for anybody. Unless they're going to melt down the metal and use it to pay down the deficit who cares? The BLM movement is stupid. It masks the issue of police brutality against everybody and makes it solely about race. That Aussie woman that was gunned down by a black copy is just as much a victim of police brutality as the black concealed carry holder that was gunned down by a Hispanic cop or Tamir Rice, the black kid with the BB gun, who was gunned down by two white cops. I want real freedom. Not black freedom. Not white freedom. Real freedom. Don't think I'll get it until Jesus comes though.

[Anti Federalist]

I think it's a distinction that makes no freaking difference at all.

A nice rant, +rep.

I do think it makes a difference.

I think it better to walk away, when faced with insurmountable difficulties, than to be forced to stay and remain at each other's throats.

Had the South just gone, everybody would have been better off: there would have been no war, there would have been no Leviathan federal state, as you noted, slavery was going to end anyway, there would have been no Jim Crow, there would have been no KKK, there would have been no lynchings, there would have been no Selma...and on and on and on...things would have been infinitely better all around.

[jmdrake]

A nice rant, +rep.

I do think it makes a difference.

I think it better to walk away, when faced with insurmountable difficulties, than to be forced to stay and remain at each other's throats.

Had the South just gone, everybody would have been better off: there would have been no war, there would have been no Leviathan federal state, as you noted, slavery was going to end anyway, there would have been no Jim Crow, there would have been no KKK, there would have been no lynchings, there would have been no Selma...and on and on and on...things would have been infinitely better all around.

Thanks for the comments and the +rep. For the record I'm not saying slavery would have ended anyway. You have far more faith, apparently, than I do in the ability of people who think they are getting a free lunch to realize they are actually cutting their own throats. Let me put it to you another way. Do you think welfare is going to just end on its own? It's just as counter productive to the people that are on it as slavery was to the south.

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for the comments and the +rep. For the record I'm not saying slavery would have ended anyway. You have far more faith, apparently, than I do in the ability of people who think they are getting a free lunch to realize they are actually cutting their own throats. Let me put it to you another way. Do you think welfare is going to just end on its own? It's just as counter productive to the people that are on it as slavery was to the south.

You wrote:


The South needed slavery to end but they were just too stupid to realize it. And once slavery ended and the South industrialized, all of a sudden tarriffs became a non issue too.

That would have happened on it's own, or else the whole system would have collapsed, like failed Communist states, especially as world public opinion swung against it. The UK had already eliminated the slave trade by then and the Dutch.


Let me put it to you another way. Do you think welfare is going to just end on its own? It's just as counter productive to the people that are on it as slavery was to the south

Yes it is, but the goal is the opposite.

A slave, as an economic commodity, is supposed to be productive.

A slave of the state, through welfare or the coming Universal Basic Income, is supposed to be non-productive: helpless and hopeless and forever dependent upon the state.

At least maybe until 2120 or so, when the machines and the elites make the "final solution" move on the 90 percent of us meat bags that are useless and superfluous and not needed.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's the justification for the southern "means" or "ends"? :rolleyes: right back at you. The Southern states were hypocrites that didn't believe in the right of secession of actual libertarian groups that didn't want to be part of the confederacy. The Southern states first instituted the draft, enslaving poor whites to fight in a rich mans war, then turned around and exempted slave owners from fighting. Note they didn't just exempt rich people! They only exempted slave owners! So if you were rich but had a conscience and didn't own slaves you were still subject to the draft! Where is the morality in that?

Again, explain to me why I should be against neo-Nazis but complacent with southern apologists? What did the Nazis ever to do me or anyone like me? Sieg Heil!

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed the CSA to be a proto-libertarian bunch. (For me this is a matter of "more correct" than "perfectly correct on everything", as there is no such thing as a just involuntary government- as the CSA and USA were/are) They were just right about certain critically important principles, as AF, et al have pointed out.

[jmdrake]

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed the CSA to be a proto-libertarian bunch. (For me this is a matter of "more correct" than "perfectly correct on everything", as there is no such thing as a just involuntary government- as the CSA and USA were/are) They were just right about certain critically important principles, as AF, et al have pointed out.

The Nazis were right about certain things as I pointed out. In fact when Stalin invaded Finland, which at the time had and still does have a representative form of government, it was the Nazis that came to Finland's aid in what is now known as the Winter War. Sieg Heil!

[RonPaulMall]

No. I am informed. You are not. I'm going to try to make it a point not to argue with ignorant people. The documentation is out there for anyone who wants to know the truth. The South seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. They said that's why they were seceding. And before any blood was shed on "Southern soil", Southern pro slavery terrorists shed blood in "bloody Kansas." And if the South gave a crap about liberty, when people in the South wanted to secede from the South, the southern states tried to put down their secession with violence. I pointed that out to you in my last post and instead of addressing it like an adult, you decided to become a child and resort to name calling. That proves that you have lost the argument.

Even if what you say is true, and it is not, that only applies to the Deep South. The Upper South all voted to remain in the Union following Lincoln's election. It was only when Lincoln later ordered them to send troops for an invasion of the Lower South that the Upper Southern states all decided to leave.

[jmdrake]

You wrote:



That would have happened on it's own, or else the whole system would have collapsed, like failed Communist states, especially as world public opinion swung against it. The UK had already eliminated the slave trade by then and the Dutch.



Yes it is, but the goal is the opposite.

A slave, as an economic commodity, is supposed to be productive.

A slave of the state, through welfare or the coming Universal Basic Income, is supposed to be non-productive: helpless and hopeless and forever dependent upon the state.

At least maybe until 2120 or so, when the machines and the elites make the "final solution" move on the 90 percent of us meat bags that are useless and superfluous and not needed.

Communism ended? Apparently nobody told the North Koreans....or the Chinese....or the Cubans. Oh yeah, and slavery is alive and well in North Korea and China. In fact it's alive and well in the U.S. in the form of the prison industrial complex. Oh but you may counter "But China isn't pure communist." The Soviet Union wasn't "pure communist" either. And if you've read animal farm you known that the end goal is for the pigs to look like the humans and the humans look like the pigs. (Communists take on aspects of capitalism and capitalists take on aspects of communism/socialism and the rest of the animals still get screwed by both sides.) Looks like the plan is right on track to me. Tell me what I'm missing? Seriously give me some hope here. I want to be wrong.

Yes, the U.K. abolished slavery in 1833 and did so without war. They were able to do that because slavery was not a regional issue like it was in the United States. There were not "slave" and "free" areas of the United Kingdom. Thus parliament did not have "slave" and "free" factions the was the United States did. So the takeaway? If Britain had finished the job in 1812 or won in 1776, slavery would have ended sooner in what is now the United States sooner as well. I guess I should adopt the position of libertarian billionaire Peter Schiff that the U.S. would have been better off if we had lost the revolutionary war? (See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-205338.html?) Certainly in other British colonies the problem of racism is not nearly as pronounced. In fact in 1812 the British offered freedom to any slave who joined with them against the United States. That was the cause for the now "lost verse" of the Star Spangled Banner. And people wonder why Colin Kaeprinick didn't stand or why Gabby Douglas didn't put her hand over her heart for the national anthem? (See: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/09/27/commentary/world-commentary/no-refuge-save-hireling-slave/#.WZWCwVWGOUk) Of course Merika only came down hard on the man (Colin) and largely ignored the woman, cute little Gabby Douglas. It's much more politically correct to beat a man down economically for standing up for what he believes in than to beat down a woman.

Anyway, slavery ended in the U.S. because God willed it to and it ended in a bloody civil war because God willed that as well. The civil war was God's punishment on the South for slavery and God's punishment on the North for allowing it. That's why it was one of the bloodiest wars in history on both sides. In God's economy, blood atones for sin. The North should have won the war quickly and easily, but God wouldn't allow that to happen until Lincoln reluctantly signed the emancipation proclamation. Then all sorts of "bad luck" (God's judgment) happened to the south, like the South's best General, Stonewall Jackson, getting accidentally shot by his own men. Explain that one outside of the hand of God? And here's one of the few places I disagree with Ron Paul. He talks about how slavery could have ended to compensated emancipation. Well....Lincoln tried that with the border states (the slave states that didn't secede), but he couldn't get the plan through congress. The greedy slave owners wanted more money than was being offered and the non slave states didn't want to give them jack for something morally they should have done on their own without being paid. The Egyptians didn't get paid when the Hebrews left Egypt. Quite the contrary, they paid the Hebrews. And then some of the Egyptians decided they wanted to get their money and slaves back and got drowned in the Red Sea. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap."

Here is the only way that I can think of that under the U.S. system slavery could have ended without war. Taxing people who didn't own slaves to pay for the compensated emancipation of people who did own slaves is immoral. Sure it's better than war but it's still immoral. But, had the tariffs been dramatically increased, and all of the tariff money been used to buy freedom for slaves and then provided the economic means for them to get on their feet, then maybe war could have been avoided. The South would have had no argument that tariffs represented a transfer of wealth to the North. And what they thought was a fair price could have been negotiated. But God didn't want it to go that way. "The Most High rules in the kingdoms of men and He puts up and He sets down whom He sees fit." The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that His wrath could be brought down on Egypt. Well that same God hardened the hearts of U.S. politicians so that His wrath could be brought to bear on the United States of American, North and South.

[jmdrake]

Even if what you say is true, and it is not, that only applies to the Deep South. The Upper South all voted to remain in the Union following Lincoln's election. It was only when Lincoln later ordered them to send troops for an invasion of the Lower South that the Upper Southern states all decided to leave.

Kentucky never left. There were other "border states" that never seceded. And they sent troops into the "Deep South." The emancipation proclamation was carefully crafted to avoid freeing slaves in the border states. But if you were like my great great grandfather, you got your freedom papers signed by Lincoln himself in reward for fighting against the Confederacy. Lincoln tried to pass compensated emancipation with the border states but they were too greedy for money they didn't deserve. Ultimately all of those slaves were freed when the war ended and the 13th amendment was ratified. God willed slavery to end and He willed for a bloody civil war to be the way it ended.

[goldenequity]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6d574fffdce97b5d5701c69977c8c483d67ef2c796be63358 539b10126010f6.jpg?w=800&h=476

[goldenequity]

I post this vid to make a point.
The point: How MUCH I enjoyed reading through all the above posts by some very smart and educated minds
delivering great posts and counter posts. Amazing rants jmdrake. :)

I guess the point is civil discourse. Tucker laments its decay.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOzy2faqauI

[phill4paul]

Vandals deface statue of Robert E. Lee at Duke Chapel.


DURHAM
A vandal or vandals defaced the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee near the entrance of Duke Chapel.

The incident happened sometime overnight, Duke University spokesman Keith Lawrence said, adding that the campus police are investigating.

Lawrence declined to speculate about how the damage was inflicted. Parts of Lee’s face had been chipped off, including all of his nose.

The statue’s face is high enough off the ground that most people would need a stepstool or small ladder to reach it.

The incident happened amid the ongoing controversy, heightened by events last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, about the presence of Confederate monuments on public property and other prominent locations. On Monday, protesters pulled down one such monument in downtown Durham; seven people face charges.

Another local Confederate memorial, UNC Chapel Hill’s “Silent Sam” statue on McCorkle Place, has been vandalized repeatedly in recent years, usually with spray paint.

Thursday’s incident is the first known vandalism targeting the Lee statue at Duke.

Duke officials said they’d increased security around the chapel, and will review a surveillance video from inside it.

Like their counterparts at UNC-CH, the Duke administration faces calls to deal with the statue. A Duke Divinity School alumnus, Ocracoke United Methodist Church paster Richard Bryant, argues that campus officials should begin making plans to remove or disavow it.

“Racist iconography has no place in a Christian church,” Bryant said earlier this week.

On Thursday, Duke President Vince Price said people should respect the university’s process for dealing with the issue.

“For an individual or group of individuals to take matters into their own hands and vandalize a house of worship undermines the right, protected in our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion, of every Duke student and employee to participate fully in university life,” Price said. “To that end, earlier this week I began consulting with students, faculty, alumni and others about the ways in which we can use this issue to teach, learn and heal. Together – and only together – we will determine an appropriate course of action informed by our collective values.”

He added that Duke Chapel “is a place of sanctuary and refuge that belongs to every member of the Duke community.”

Unlike Silent Sam and Durham County’s Confederate memorial, Duke Chapel and the Lee statue are on private property.

The statue of Lee is one of 10 that ring the portal of the cathedral’s main entrance, and has been there since Duke Chapel’s construction. While Duke has long held the statues are symbolic and not meant to represent real people, the image of Lee is unmistakably that of the Confederacy’s top general.

Duke lore holds that the chapel’s builder, John Donnelly, chose the people to depict in consultation with a professor at Vanderbilt University.

Read more here: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article167702402.html#fmp#storylink=cpy

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/pzzg83/picture167702397/alternates/FREE_768/Duke%20Chapel%20statue

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/izl2k3/picture167706062/alternates/FREE_768/lee2-closeup

[Brian4Liberty]

Protesters in Atlanta Vandalize ‘Peace Monument’ After Mistaking It for Confederate Symbol
by Penny Starr - 16 Aug 2017


Protesters vandalized and attempted to take down the Peace Monument in Piedmont Park in Atlanta on Sunday, mistaking it for a pro-Confederate statue.

The protesters were marching in response to the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday where one woman died after being deliberately hit by a car, and two law enforcement personnel were killed when the helicopter they were in crashed.
...
More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/16/protesters-atlanta-tear-peace-monument-mistaking-confederate-symbol/

[phill4paul]

Protesters in Atlanta Vandalize ‘Peace Monument’ After Mistaking It for Confederate Symbol
by Penny Starr - 16 Aug 2017

SMDH. Just goes to show that when a crowd is incited it does not follow logic, it is a rabid animal that will bite at all near it including itself.

[Brian4Liberty]

Lincoln Statue Found Burned on Chicago's South Side (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Abe-Lincoln-Statue-Burned-on-Chicagos-South-Side-440897443.html)


An Abraham Lincoln [statue] was damaged and burned in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood late Wednesday, Ald. Ray Lopez said.

The statue was found burned near 69th Street and Wolcott, authorities said.

"What an absolute disgraceful act of vandalism," Lopez wrote on Facebook along with an image of the charred structure. He encouraged anyone who has information on what happened to contact police or his office "immediately."

Police did not immediately have information on what happened.

The statue, a bust of Lincoln, was erected by Phil Bloomquist on Aug. 31, 1926.

It is one of many that have been vandalized across the country in wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia and the president's comments that followed.
...
More: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Abe-Lincoln-Statue-Burned-on-Chicagos-South-Side-440897443.html

[heavenlyboy34]

The Nazis were right about certain things as I pointed out. In fact when Stalin invaded Finland, which at the time had and still does have a representative form of government, it was the Nazis that came to Finland's aid in what is now known as the Winter War. Sieg Heil!
Dang,Goodwin's Law came into effect pretty quick last night, didn't it? Well done, comrade.

[Carlybee]

They need to move them all to private property.

[phill4paul]

They need to move them all to private property.

Then the autistic screechers of the left would show up at the private property and deface them there. They don't want them on private property. They don't want them in museums. Nothing less than total destruction is acceptable.

[shakey1]

http://www.kettlemorainepreciousmetals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/shit-hit-fan.jpg

[Carlybee]

Then the autistic screechers of the left would show up at the private property and deface them there. They don't want them on private property. They don't want them in museums. Nothing less than total destruction is acceptable.

yeah but if they show up on private property you can shoot them

[Swordsmyth]

yeah but if they show up on private property you can shoot them

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xGPPRI3jZW0/hqdefault.jpg

[bunklocoempire]

They need to move them all to private property.

A bunch of private parks and monuments haven't sprung up already?

Me thinks these "sides" are not sincere about their causes. When you try to control/direct the gun of government, you immediately reveal your true cause.

[Carlybee]

A bunch of private parks and monuments haven't sprung up already?

Me thinks these "sides" are not sincere about their causes. When you try to control/direct the gun of government, you immediately reveal your true cause.

All these monuments are maintained by govt usually at the local and state level so its going to be like when the atheists protested having religious symbols on govt property. The key to everything is take everything out of the government's hands. Once that happens, special interest groups immediately lose their power.

[heavenlyboy34]

A bunch of private parks and monuments haven't sprung up already?

Me thinks these "sides" are not sincere about their causes. When you try to control/direct the gun of government, you immediately reveal your true cause.
Pretty much. It's less directly expensive to control the historical narrative on the taxpayer's dime no matter which side you take.

[Anti Federalist]

They need to move them all to private property.

Won't stop a damn thing.

The Red Terror has begun, and if it spools up into what has happened before, we'll all be lucky to survive it.

And sadly, it's been needed for a long time, the current model is unsustainable.

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/08/17/20170818_jobs.jpg

[William Tell]

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

[phill4paul]

Duke University Removes Robert E. Lee Statue After It Was Vandalized

The university said it removed the carved limestone likeness early Saturday from Duke Chapel where it stood among 10 historical figures depicted in the entryway. Another statue of Lee was at the heart of a violent protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, that turned deadly a week ago.


University president Vincent Price said in a letter to the campus community that he consulted with faculty, staff, students and alumni about the decision to remove the statue. Officials discovered early Thursday that the statue's face had been damaged by vandalism.


"I took this course of action to protect Duke Chapel, to ensure the vital safety of students and community members who worship there, and above all to express the deep and abiding values of our university," Price said in the letter.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/duke-university-removes-robert-e-lee-statue-after-it-was-n794141

[William Tell]

Something tells me if people were vandalizing statues of MLK they wouldn't be taken down, as that would be appeasing criminals.

[specsaregood]

full retard:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc-traveler-20170818-story.html



Traveler, USC's mascot, comes under scrutiny for having a name similar to Robert E. Lee's horse

hen Richard Saukko galloped his chalk-white Arabian horse named Traveler around the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum almost 56 years ago, it was supposed to be a one-time stunt.

Instead, the brief performance before USC kicked off its season against Georgia Tech turned into one of college football’s iconic traditions. A succession of white horses named Traveler have followed — Traveler IX debuts this fall — trotting out of the tunnel as “Conquest” plays and the costumed Trojan warrior atop the horse waves a sword. But during a rally earlier this week to show solidarity in the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., a USC campus group linked the name to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, whose favorite horse was Traveller.

At the rally, according to the student newspaper the Daily Trojan, Saphia Jackson, co-director of the USC Black Student Assembly, asked students not to be quiet, and reminded that “white supremacy hits close to home” and referenced the name of the Trojans mascot.

The Black Student Assembly did not respond to requests for comment, but questions about the name’s provenance have increased on social media in the midst of the national discussion on race.



Saukko died in 1992, but his widow wasn’t surprised when a reporter called Friday.

“The problem is this: maybe three weeks ago it was fine,” Pat Saukko DeBernardi said. “So now the flavor of the day is . . . we all have to be in hysteria. . . . It’s more of a political issue. The horse isn’t political and neither am I.”

She noted that the name of Lee’s well-known horse included an extra “l” and, besides, Traveler was already named when her late husband purchased him for $5,000 in 1958, half the asking price. The horse was a fixture in movies like “Snowfire” and “The Ballad of a Gunfighter.”

more at link...

[acptulsa]

LOL

Because this nation has no problems that can't be solved by beating a dead white horse.

[Valli6]

...but then we already knew he was a hypocrite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLc6bubVYD0#t=1m10s

@ 1:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLc6bubVYD0

[Swordsmyth]

full retard:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc-traveler-20170818-story.html

Lee had a Horse?!!! EXTERMINATE HORSES!!!!!

[Anti Federalist]

LOL

Because this nation has no problems that can't be solved by beating a dead white horse.

Hahahahaha!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

Somebody cover me please, that was precious.

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump is guilty of exploiting racial biases and to an extent even of cultivating it... taking a page from last DGP's regime masters. But many of his critics in media are blatant hypocrites and their varnished lukewarm practical racism sustained ffor decades has so far proven to be far more deadly for humanity.

Vast majority of media owners' employees are not asking important questions that would expose past and present violent racism/slavery/oppression against humans of different races by focussing narrowly on more entertaining battle of symbols, such questions need to be raised still. There also seems to be complete rejection of the notion that there may be many Americans who are not racist and oppose removal of all controversial historic statues. And that there could be violent racism enablers on "many sides".

1. How many of the so called "antifa" supported US taxpeyrs funded removal of Saddam's Statue in Iraq and violent militant spreading of our freedom/racial equality values to Iraq, Libya, Syria that has killed/maimed/displaced millions of people of different races?

http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/gt_saddam_statue_toppling_630x420_101228.jpg



2. How many of the "antifa" accepted/tolerated/remained silent in thr face of drone ganastaism of recent years that killed thousands of children (including many underage children) of other races?

At least there was some principled consistency visible when some 1960s antifascists like boxer Ali went to prison for refusing to to join freedom spreading to people of Vietnam.

3. How many of the "antifa" today view disgraced DGP as a political slave of violent racist war mongering lobbies?
How many of them support removing any remaining statues of DGP in the US?
Or they will remain silent now and start that drive a century later on first come-first serve basis of justice delayed?



4. How many of "antifa" believe that supporting ISIS is a deeply racist strategy?






Related


Do you believe there is widespread political slavery in the US election system? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514137-Do-you-believe-there-is-widespread-political-slavery-in-the-US-election-system&)

Let's remove symbols of past slavery AND current forms of slavery. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514184-Let-s-remove-symbols-of-past-slavery-AND-current-forms-of-slavery&)

Would any remaining statues of violent racial lobbies' political slaves would have to go too under such an abundantly free regime?

Barack Obama statue removed from Jakarta park after protests
The Telegraph

http://michellemalkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/obama_statue2.jpg


Did antifa support or oppose Obama? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514094-Did-antifa-support-or-oppose-Obama&)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/25/article-2732229-20CA41DB00000578-64_634x429.jpg


Police have returned a life-size statue of President Barack Obama that went missing from its owner's northeastern Pennsylvania porch and was found a few days later reclining on a nearby park bench with a six-pack of Twisted Tea





Hypocrisy: Neocon McCain, Graham support Kissinger but claim to opposes racists

Noecon Henry Kissinger supports ISIS (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513877-Henry-Kissinger-supports-ISIS&)

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Henry+Kissinger+Obama+Biden+Meet+Congressional+-4LQGB2_3c1l.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/47/4d/a0/474da0ab73aa3674656d0be94a959af3--henry-kissinger-new-world-order.jpg

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2015/11/blogs/graphic-detail/20151121_woc539.png
http://globalinfonews.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Obama-the-Founder-of-ISIS.jpg


(http://globalinfonews.com/2016/08/12/trump-calls-obama-and-hillary-clinton-the-founder-of-isis/)

Movement to remove all historic symbols of slavery gains momentun

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/President_Barack_Obama_tours_the_Pyramids_and_Sphi nx_with_Secretary_General_of_the_Egyptian_Supreme_ Council_of_Antiquities.jpg

[acptulsa]

Hahahahaha!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

Somebody cover me please, that was precious.

Well, I'm truly pleased that you liked it, anyway.

[phill4paul]

Now they go after 'sacred ground' monuments far removed from courthouse lawns.


Lawmakers urge removal of Robert E. Lee statue at Antietam

Amid the national firestorm over Civil War monuments, Maryland lawmakers are pressing the National Park Service to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee that some view as an egregious attempt to sanitize Confederate history.

And key House Democrats are threatening legislation if the Park Service won’t act on its own to take down the statue at Antietam National Battlefield, site of the bloodiest single-day battle in U.S. history.

“The history of this piece, which now resides on this sacred ground, certainly makes it clear it was recently erected by a private citizen out of pro-Confederacy enthusiasm and not to provide historical context or under the direction of a battlefield historian,” said Democratic Rep. John Delaney, whose congressional district includes Sharpsburg, where the 1862 battle took place. “I don’t think that taxpayer resources should serve that end.”

The congressman said the statue “should be taken down” and vowed to “review what legislative proposals already exist in that regard and proceed accordingly.”

Added House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, dean of the Maryland congressional delegation: “Congress must exhaust all legislative options and act to remove these statues where appropriate.”

Maryland's two Democratic senators, Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen, have reached out to the Congressional Research Service and the Park Service for more information about the Lee statue, according to Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky. Cardin voiced support this week for separate efforts in Baltimore to remove Confederate statues in the city.

Lawmakers and historians say the Lee statue at Antietam is not a piece of history but a recent attempt by an eccentric Maryland millionaire, William F. Chaney, to rewrite Confederate history and Lee's own views.

Chaney outbid the Park Service for land adjacent to Antietam, and in 2003 erected a giant statue of Lee sitting atop his horse. Chaney later sold the land to the federal government — including the statue of Lee, who he claimed was his ancestor, complete with a plaque offering a whitewashed take on the Confederate commander’s views.

Lee “was personally against secession and slavery,” the plaque reads, “but decided his duty was to fight for his home and the universal right of every people to self-determination.”

While Lee wrote an 1861 letter expressing opposition to secession, he clearly supported it with his actions. He turned down an offer to lead Union troops and instead joined the Confederacy, becoming the chief military commander in a four-year rebellion that would claim more American lives than any war before or since.

(The plaque 'whitewashes' absolutely nothing. Those were his views. Period. He fought for his home state because in those days people had greater loyalty to their State than they did to the Union and he did not wish to fight against his neighbors. The Union, after all, was made up of these several states and were supposed to be limited in it's scope by them. P4P)

Lee's personal views on slavery are still debated fiercely. Defenders of Lee often point to a letter he wrote his wife calling slavery a "moral & political evil." Lee added, though, that slavery was "a greater evil to the white man than to the black race.” He ordered the beatings of his own slaves, some of whom he freed in 1862. Lee also oversaw a Confederate army that captured escaped slaves and put them to work or returned them to their former masters. Confederate commanders under Lee treated black prisoners of war with unique cruelty, refusing to consider them legitimate Union soldiers and sometimes executing them on the spot.

Chaney could not be reached for comment. In 2003, he told The Washington Times he erected the statue to correct what he saw as an imbalance between Union and Confederate statues at Antietam. There are 96 monuments on Park Service property there, the vast majority of which honor the Union.

“It represents all the Southern boys who fought on the bloodiest day in American history,” Chaney said at the time. “They need to be represented, too.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/19/lawmakers-urge-removal-robert-e-lee-antietam-241788

[Anti Federalist]

Lee added, though, that slavery was "a greater evil to the white man than to the black race.”

Hard to argue with that, in retrospect.

[phill4paul]

Hard to argue with that, in retrospect.

Lee was a forward thinking man for his time period. He had the great respect of his contemporaries on the side of the North and South. This excoriation of him in the media and in education makes exactly my point when I say "This is nothing other than a revision of history that going on."

[Anti Federalist]

Lee was a forward thinking man for his time period. He had the great respect of his contemporaries on the side of the North and South. This excoriation of him in the media and in education makes exactly my point when I say "This is nothing other than a revision of history that going on."

Even worse than a "revision" it's ramping up into wholesale destruction and "memory holing" of giant portions of it.

[Ender]

Lee was a forward thinking man for his time period. He had the great respect of his contemporaries on the side of the North and South. This excoriation of him in the media and in education makes exactly my point when I say "This is nothing other than a revision of history that going on."

History is always written by the winners.

Most Americans have no real clue of any real US history.

The Civil War was about slavery
The North had no slaves
Only blacks were slaves
Lincoln freed the slaves
Indians were savages
Columbus discovered America
WWI was because Germany was the bad guy
And so on and so forth
Etc, etc, etc.........

[Ender]

Hahahahaha!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

Somebody cover me please, that was precious.

Covered!

[phill4paul]

Vandals BEHEAD Confederate soldier statue in Ohio cemetery

A Confederate soldier statue in an Ohio cemetery was beheaded by vandals early Tuesday.

Police say the monument of a solider at Camp Chase Confederate Cemetery in Columbus had its head knocked off and stolen.

The vandals appeared to have climbed on an arched memorial and toppled the statue atop the monument.

The soldier's head and hat were knocked off and police reported the vandals took the head but left the hat.
Police say the vandalism occurred at the cemetery where around 2,000 soldiers are buried.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/22/22/4378F94F00000578-4814082-image-a-33_1503436634194.jpg

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814082/Confederate-soldier-statue-beheaded-vandals.html#ixzz4qakQspQE
Follow us: MAIlOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[phill4paul]

Man arrested on suspicion of bomb plot to destroy Confederate statue

Police have charged 25-year-old Andrew Schneck with attempting to maliciously damage property

A 25-year-old man has been arrested in Houston for allegedly attempting to plant a bomb near a local Confederate monument.

The Houston FBI announced on Monday that they had arrested Andrew Schneck in connection with an incident in front of the General Richard Dowling Monument in Hermann Park two days before.

Mr Schneck is believed to have been carrying items capable of producing a viable explosive device. He has been charged with attempting to maliciously damage or destroy property.

Officials say a Houston park ranger caught Mr Schneck kneeling near the statue of the Confederate general on Saturday. Prosecutors claim he was carrying two boxes with duct tape and wires, and a bottle with liquid that could be used to make explosives.

Officials conducted a raid on a Houston home on Sunday, bringing in tools often used to handle homemade bombs. In a press conference on Monday, police confirmed they were attempting to recover "significant hazardous materials".

Sources told local news station KPRC2 that authorities had searched the same house four years before, looking for materials that could be used to make nerve gas or tear gas. Less than a year later, Mr Shneck, who lived in the house with his parents, was convicted for improper storage of explosive material. He was sentenced to five years of probation and a $159,000 fine.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/houston-bomb-confederate-statue-man-arrested-police-hermann-park-a7905646.html

[jmdrake]

Dang,Goodwin's Law came into effect pretty quick last night, didn't it? Well done, comrade.

:rolleyes: All that shows is your ignorance of Goodwin's Law. It doesn't apply when the subject at hand is nazis. And the subject at hand is neo nazis protesting about a confederate statue. You lost the internet today buddy.

[William Tell]

:rolleyes: All that shows is your ignorance of Goodwin's Law. It doesn't apply when the subject at hand is nazis. And the subject at hand is neo nazis protesting about a confederate statue. You lost the internet today buddy.
What is Goodwin's law?

[devil21]

What is Goodwin's law?

Godwin

[liveandletlive]

take Tecumseh down before Lee. He was a war criminal IMO.

[Swordsmyth]

take Tecumseh down before Lee. He was a war criminal IMO.
Do you mean William Tecumseh Sherman? OR Tecumseh?

[jmdrake]

What is Goodwin's law?


Godwin

Sorry for the misspelling. heavenlyboy rubbed off on me. :toady: :o

[jmdrake]

//

[Raginfridus]

Hey, why do the good looking monuments always fall first, and not the post-modern-looking sheeyte nobody likes? (Nathan Bedford Forrest shot in the leg, his dentures popping out)

http://images.gawker.com/1310553686853971558/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.jpg

[Raginfridus]

Thought : could the monuments being targeted by vandals be insured? Could damaged monument policies doled to the fed/state/Uni's be links in a bribe loop? We won't need to upkeep the monuments either, if they're completely taken down. This is one of the way mafia bosses bought politicians.

Reminds me of a story I read a while ago. There was a company w/ a terrorism policy that rented space in WTC. There never was a criminal investigation, the insurance provider took their claim to court, but the judge dismissed the case and the company got their policy.

[Raginfridus]

So the cities do insure their monuments. I'm sure the Uni's do too.

http://www.saratogian.com/general-news/20000428/city-gets-insurance-coverage-for-statues

[phill4paul]

So the cities do insure their monuments. I'm sure the Uni's do too.

http://www.saratogian.com/general-news/20000428/city-gets-insurance-coverage-for-statues


"When you are figuring liability, you look at the most exposure," Perry said. "With a statue, there isn't that much exposure compared with things like a water plant."

Well that has certainly changed now hasn't it?

[Raginfridus]

Definitely.

I've read the mafia would buy politicians by "leaking" a false story to reporters, or having their own work as reporters. The story would print, the public figure would sue, and the case settled out of court. That was how bribes moved in the money loop. The media company would receive a "philanthropic" gift to cover their losses. I reckon vandalism can boost the value of a piece, certainly it's rarity. I'll look for the specific cases I'm thinking about.

[Raginfridus]

I haven't found the corporate example yet, I'll start over. I'm still looking for the mafia bribe story, but I did find this: Primerica, a pyramid scheme, whose parent company are Citigroup, paid billions in life insurance policies to 9/11 victims.

http://www.businessinsider.com/citigroup-primerica-ipo-2010-4

COINTELPRO/PATCON are preparing their partners in the city and university circles for escalated violence, by artificially jacking up the values of policies on historic landmarks.

[Swordsmyth]

As others tear down Confederate monuments, Alabama unveils a new one
As cities across the country are tearing down and relocating Confederate monuments, a county in southern Alabama on Sunday unveiled a new one.Several hundred people attended a dedication ceremony for the "Unknown Alabama Confederate Soldiers" at Confederate Veterans Memorial Park in Crenshaw County, Alabama, 55 miles (88 kilometers) south of Montgomery.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/confederate-monument-unknown-soldiers-unveiled-alabama-222028915.html

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Some of the statues are generic dedications to common confederate soldiers.

If I disagree with the Vietnam War, should I take a bulldozer to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial?

If one disagrees with the Korean War, should that person punch a Korean War vet?

[Pauls' Revere]

Once all human records are in "the cloud", re writing history and sending things permanently down the memory, will be a snap.

Bingo, because most people these days refer to their iphone as gospel truth and everything that it shows them.

[Raginfridus]

Its cool quoting 1984, but this one doesn't apply in our society.Huxleyan describes our mainstream society. You only see Orwell, when your views become marginal. The happy middle ground is always Huxleyan, but on the fringe, out there in the "borderlands", its Orwellian.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is getting out of hand, on Drudge now:

NEW CONFEDERATE MONUMENT UNVEILED IN ALABAMA... (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/more_than_200_people_attend_un.html)

[Swordsmyth]

From Zero Hedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/pictures/picture-235175.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/ajax-1)



Ajax-1 (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/ajax-1) Aug 28, 2017 11:01 PM (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/full-blown-civil-war-materializing-nobody-will-be-able-retreat-neutral-corner#comment-10162268)
All statues, street signs and and memorials to the Rev. MLK must be removed from punlic property due to the governing principle of "Seperation of Church and State". If the government wont do it, it's up to the people to do it. TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAT IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN.