• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confederate monuments taken down in Baltimore overnight

States Rights has been used as an excuse for years. You know, like a "feel good" phrase. Why? Because it sounds better than actually saying that blacks are inferior human beings.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If the populous was so outraged by that then the politicians would face their wrath. But they won't, because most people agree with the decision.
Click to expand...

No, they won't....Baltimore has been a liberal democrat stronghold for generations, and the primary population of the city is AA...So, on that you are probably right, but then one would have to ask, why in the dead of night like a coward?
 
riginally Posted by JamesBY Poster One says: "I have no problem with" Lenin or Confederate statues on private land and Poster Two goes all: you hate private property rights!!!
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
And yet another poster chimes in, and gets it all wrong.....:roll:
Click to expand...
Nope, you have it wrong.

No one is threatening anyone's private property rights. You can have a statue of Hitler or Mussolini and no one will make you take it down. :shrug:
 
j-mac said:
No, they won't....Baltimore has been a liberal democrat stronghold for generations, and the primary population of the city is AA...So, on that you are probably right, but then one would have to ask, why in the dead of night like a coward?
Click to expand...
It's not. You are at least consistent in your philosophy here as other places, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
As a southerner, you should also know that while slavery was a primary cause of succession, it was also about States rights....https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession
Click to expand...

Yes, the state's right to legalize slavery within the state. No slavery, no Civil War.

I think, that if you don't want your community to have a statue to honor those from the period that fought for your state, that is your opinion....What are you doing about it? Will you organize others in your community to bring forth a vote on the matter? or will you simply join the mob, and throw a strap in the back of your pick up, and head straight for the statue, armed with that strap, and signs made for you by CPUSA, and scream and shout as you tie the strap around an inanimate object and pull it to the ground because you just can't bear any longer to pass that statue any longer....?
Click to expand...

I think they should be taken down or moved to museums through legal means. I do not agree with the mob mentality of vandalizing them or pulling them down illegally.
 
JamesBY said:
Nope, you have it wrong.

No one is threatening anyone's private property rights. You can have a statue of Hitler or Mussolini and no one will make you take it down. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Again, you're only tactic is to call me a Nazi, or Fascist....pathetic.
 
JamesBY said:
It's not. You are at least consistent in your philosophy here as other places, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Wait....What's not....Careful, I lived in proximity to Baltimore for 20 years.
 
JamesBY said:
Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post What about bridges, can they start removing bridges named after former, but pardoned, Confederate Generals?



Thanks for your admission of failure.
Click to expand...

You are welcome for jumping to incorrect conclusions.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, the state's right to legalize slavery within the state. No slavery, no Civil War.
Click to expand...

Living in SC now, but raised in the north, I can tell you that many of your own fellow Southerners would disagree to a degree with you....For instance, many believe that although slavery was wrong, and feel the shame of that burden on the south, that the issues of unequal taxation, as example was just as much at issue back then....

I think they should be taken down or moved to museums through legal means. I do not agree with the mob mentality of vandalizing them or pulling them down illegally.
Click to expand...

We agree on this point.
 
Quote Originally Posted by JamesBY View Post Nope, you have it wrong. No one is threatening anyone's private property rights. You can have a statue of Hitler or Mussolini and no one will make you take it down.
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
Again, you're only tactic is to call me a Nazi, or Fascist....pathetic.
Click to expand...

j-mac, here as elsewhere, your lack of sense is obvious. I did not call you a fascist or a Nazi. I said you had the right to such statuary.

No one wants to infringe on your private property rights.
 
j-mac said:
Living in SC now, but raised in the north, I can tell you that many of your own fellow Southerners would disagree to a degree with you....For instance, many believe that although slavery was wrong, and feel the shame of that burden on the south, that the issues of unequal taxation, as example was just as much at issue back then.... We agree on this point.
Click to expand...

And they would certainly be wrong. The issue was Negro Chattel Slaver, the issue of "black gold", that informed every other minor cause and symptom of the social disease.
 
j-mac said:
No, they won't....Baltimore has been a liberal democrat stronghold for generations, and the primary population of the city is AA...So, on that you are probably right, but then one would have to ask, why in the dead of night like a coward?
Click to expand...

Because, as has been shown, these stature removals attract people who make threats of violence towards the construction workers doing the removal. It's not cowardly, it's safe.
 
JasperL said:
Not inability. You're question was stupid - akin to "Well, tell me this, if she hadn't smarted off to her husband, would he have beat her to death? I think not! BOTH SIDES!"
Click to expand...

Nice try at playing around the question, but you still didn't answer it.

Besides it was a perfectly logical question, though I can see that since you & Eco are so close to the hip. You are most likely just Trolling like he always does, which probably explains why your starting to get boring as well.

You can run from an actual intelligent conversation all you want, but the internet is forever, and when someone wants to know why I don't take people like you seriously. I'll just direct them to this line in the thread for my proof.


Laufen und verstecken Troll, das Licht kommt
 
j-mac said:
Living in SC now, but raised in the north, I can tell you that many of your own fellow Southerners would disagree to a degree with you....For instance, many believe that although slavery was wrong, and feel the shame of that burden on the south, that the issues of unequal taxation, as example was just as much at issue back then....
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you are correct about what my fellow Southerners believe but that's because the Lost Cause propaganda, taught for nearly 150 years now, still runs deep. There is just no evidence that e.g. taxation was the most serious issue, and vast evidence slavery was, but that story is at least mostly ignored (if it's taught at all) in favor of the Lost Cause narrative that really anything but slavery was the cause of the Northern Aggression.

Two more quick points. First, if they're blaming the war on taxes, they're trying to shift or hide the shame/burden of slavery AND the century of Jim Crow that followed. They don't want to admit that, yes, the Civil War was about perpetuating that shameful institution, and even after losing the war, the South successfully maintained white supremacy at the barrel of a gun for a century more.

Second, the fact that the Lost Cause still has such influence is good news for those who put up those monuments. That was the point. Obviously no one installing a monument to Lee (or at least defending it in 2017) says, "We honor Lee today for his brave fight to guarantee slavery's protection in the states and to spread slavery to the territories!" A different narrative is needed, which is the Lost Cause narrative that these men fought for states' rights, or taxes, or Southern culture and way of life, anything but the institution of slavery.

We agree on this point.
Click to expand...

As do I.
 
Oborosen said:
Nice try at playing around the question, but you still didn't answer it.

Besides it was a perfectly logical question, though I can see that since you & Eco are so close to the hip. You are most likely just Trolling like he always does, which probably explains why your starting to get boring as well.

You can run from an actual intelligent conversation all you want, but the internet is forever, and when someone wants to know why I don't take people like you seriously. I'll just direct them to this line in the thread for my proof.


Laufen und verstecken Troll, das Licht kommt
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm pretty sure the mods take a dim view of calling others trolls, and I'm not running and hiding, and any light coming from anywhere is very unlikely to come from you. But OK, I'll answer your question.....

Can you honestly tell me with full certainty, that had non of the counter protestors show their face at that march, and been eager to spill blood. That the same white nationalist nut job would have still rammed his car into a crowd of people?
Click to expand...

We can really end your question with the bolded. You've posed an alternative reality, and asked us whether or not in this different reality, I'm somehow positive that the neo-Nazi would NOT have rammed his car into a crowd of protesters. Obviously, (forgetting every other part of the question) the only answer is "No." Similarly, I can't be "fully certain" that if the neo-Nazi hadn't picked a different place for breakfast that the event would still have happened, or it had rained, or was held on a different day of the week, or the march by Tiki torches the night before had not happened. If headliners David Duke and Richard Spencer hadn't been there, perhaps both the neo-Nazi and Heather Heyer stay home! No deaths! Etc. We could play the "what if" game for days, and the only answer to every "what if" would be something along the order of "who knows?"

But you can't have posed your leading hypothetical to get the obvious answer of "No." That's a given. So it's meant as a way to shift blame to the protesters for the act of the neo-Nazi. If you want to make that case, just do it instead of through a highly leading question. For the minutes before the murder, the neo-Nazi was safe in his car, all alone, free to take a turn AWAY from the "war zone" as you call it, and go get some country ham with biscuits and scrambled eggs, then to head on back to his life wherever. Instead, he deliberately turned down a street blocked by protesters, accelerated into them, and tried to kill a bunch of them with his car. There is no evidence Heather Heyer or anyone else seriously injured played any part in any violence anywhere, nor that there was fighting going on anywhere in the vicinity of the murder and mayhem. So if you want to defend the neo-Nazi, then just do it. Why is it Heather Heyer's fault, or those in ICU still, or the dozen others injured, that the neo-Nazi from the safety of his car made a deliberate decision to commit an act of murder?
 
Last edited:
xHitiStopi9h3PE2SKHU2_PAQ2oayv_Sp-RS8zrtihrCSHeuuIqohiVRfhSi4s7M.png
 
JasperL said:
First of all, I'm pretty sure the mods take a dim view of calling others trolls, and I'm not running and hiding, and any light coming from anywhere is very unlikely to come from you. But OK, I'll answer your question.....



We can really end your question with the bolded. You've posed an alternative reality, and asked us whether or not in this different reality, I'm somehow positive that the neo-Nazi would NOT have rammed his car into a crowd of protesters. Obviously, (forgetting every other part of the question) the only answer is "No." Similarly, I can't be "fully certain" that if the neo-Nazi hadn't picked a different place for breakfast that the event would still have happened, or it had rained, or was held on a different day of the week, or the march by Tiki torches the night before had not happened. If headliners David Duke and Richard Spencer hadn't been there, perhaps both the neo-Nazi and Heather Heyer stay home! No deaths! Etc. We could play the "what if" game for days, and the only answer to every "what if" would be something along the order of "who knows?"

But you can't have posed your leading hypothetical to get the obvious answer of "No." That's a given. So it's meant as a way to shift blame to the protesters for the act of the neo-Nazi. If you want to make that case, just do it instead of through a highly leading question. For the minutes before the murder, the neo-Nazi was safe in his car, all alone, free to take a turn AWAY from the "war zone" as you call it, and go get some country ham with biscuits and scrambled eggs, then to head on back to his life wherever. Instead, he deliberately turned down a street blocked by protesters, accelerated into them, and tried to kill a bunch of them with his car. There is no evidence Heather Heyer or anyone else seriously injured played any part in any violence anywhere, nor that there was fighting going on anywhere in the vicinity of the murder and mayhem. So if you want to defend the neo-Nazi, then just do it. Why is it Heather Heyer's fault, or those in ICU still, or the dozen others injured, that the neo-Nazi from the safety of his car made a deliberate decision to commit an act of murder?
Click to expand...

Wow, just to actually see you post something other then a few abjections is a treat.
Seems you & Eco aren't alike after all.

The reason for hypothetical questions is as such, because its hypothetical. You can claim I am defended him all you want, but the fact of the matter is I've already stated my stance on them. They had the right to protest, and that was it. Their views were their own, and for the most part we can all agree that their views are not good for humanity as a whole. Even though their views are just another touch of identity politics that we have come to see in the states as of late.

What I can say for certain is that he was a man who lead a relatively uncharismatic life, went to work, slept, and ate like anyone else. His record was highly devoid of any serious crime, and from video taken at the scene we can see people fighting in that crowd. So in the moment he could have just mistaken them for the same Antifa ****s that showed up. Even though Antifa pride themselves on being anonymous, so they most likely were hiding among the innocents to make themselves just disappear.

Now in the white nationalist defense, they did not show up for violence. They had a vastly smaller crowd that even they planned to gather, and the number of "armed" support they had was minimal. To which the statement for them being there was, and I quote (the appearance of counter protestors in the past, has lead to violence) Whereas the protest themselves had always managed to be surprisingly peaceful despite the ideas the far-right group tolls.

So we can honestly say that there wouldn't have been violence if Antifa, and their hate squad hadn't shown up.

Then again young Alex was considered misguided by his high school teacher, so what is to say his views couldn't have been more fanatical then the entirety of the who alt-right group there. But given the track record of things, I am putting it mostly on the head of Antifa myself.

(What kind of person brings a home-made flamethrower to a protest..really?)
 
sanman said:
Here's an article worth reading:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...ert-e-lee-statues-betray-historical-ignorance
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that article is typical of Lost Cause propaganda. I'll just point out a couple of glaring falsehoods.

One of the states that had not seceded was Virginia, where slavery was on the decline, and was expected to eventually go away as it had in the northern states, when it was no longer economically viable.
Click to expand...

There were about 490,000 slaves in Virginia - more than in any other state - representing about 1/3 of the state's total population, which at the time included the mountainous region which was split off as West Virginia in 1863.

So there is just ZERO evidence that slavery was on the decline in VA or that the residents there could see the end of it as it became economically non-viable.

graph1_001-300x168.png


[Lee] had inherited slaves; however, he freed them.
Click to expand...

Misleading to the point of a lie. It was his wife who inherited the slaves referred to, not Lee. And the reason he "freed" them was because as executor of the will, he was required by the terms of the will to free them. He had no choice, and he kept them as slaves for FIVE YEARS after his wife inherited them.

Furthermore, Lee's mother left him slaves when she died in 1829. It's unclear exactly when Lee's last slave was sold or died, but he owned slaves until at least 1847 and perhaps as late as 1852, so for a period of roughly 20 years.

In an 1856 letter, Lee wrote of his hope that slavery would eventually disappear," declaring, “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. He called for prayer to see the “final abolition of human slavery” through peaceful means.
Click to expand...

That's also true but woefully incomplete. His full letter is here.

http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter-to-his-wife-on-slavery

A part of it:

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white 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.
Click to expand...

What does all that mean? People still debate it but we also know what Lee DID with those slaves. This is from a letter by a former Lee slave, the ones he inherited and "freed", who had tried to escape and was caught.

ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable was called in, who gave us the number ofl ashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to "lay it on well," an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.
Click to expand...

Remember, these are three of the slaves that his wife inherited and the Lost Cause narrative described as "freed" by Lee - flogged then the wounds washed with salt water...

If people want to argue Lee was a complex man, that's fine, but the Lost Cause narrative just writes out significant parts of his history. In their telling, Lee is the next closest thing to an abolitionist, which is total BS.

And the problem with Lee's position if you believe it is that he recognizes the evils of slavery, but not only does he do nothing to combat it beyond expressing his views to his wife in a private letter, he goes to war with the side dedicated to preserving it and expanding it to the territories. I just cannot see that as a moral position worth celebrating.
 
JasperL said:
I'm sorry but that article is typical of Lost Cause propaganda. I'll just point out a couple of glaring falsehoods.



There were about 490,000 slaves in Virginia - more than in any other state - representing about 1/3 of the state's total population, which at the time included the mountainous region which was split off as West Virginia in 1863.

So there is just ZERO evidence that slavery was on the decline in VA or that the residents there could see the end of it as it became economically non-viable.

graph1_001-300x168.png




Misleading to the point of a lie. It was his wife who inherited the slaves referred to, not Lee. And the reason he "freed" them was because as executor of the will, he was required by the terms of the will to free them. He had no choice, and he kept them as slaves for FIVE YEARS after his wife inherited them.

Furthermore, Lee's mother left him slaves when she died in 1829. It's unclear exactly when Lee's last slave was sold or died, but he owned slaves until at least 1847 and perhaps as late as 1852, so for a period of roughly 20 years.



That's also true but woefully incomplete. His full letter is here.

Letter to his wife on slavery (1856). By Robert E. Lee // Fair Use Repository

A part of it:



What does all that mean? People still debate it but we also know what Lee DID with those slaves. This is from a letter by a former Lee slave, the ones he inherited and "freed", who had tried to escape and was caught.



Remember, these are three of the slaves that his wife inherited and the Lost Cause narrative described as "freed" by Lee - flogged then the wounds washed with salt water...

If people want to argue Lee was a complex man, that's fine, but the Lost Cause narrative just writes out significant parts of his history. In their telling, Lee is the next closest thing to an abolitionist, which is total BS.

And the problem with Lee's position if you believe it is that he recognizes the evils of slavery, but not only does he do nothing to combat it beyond expressing his views to his wife in a private letter, he goes to war with the side dedicated to preserving it and expanding it to the territories. I just cannot see that as a moral position worth celebrating.
Click to expand...

Good post for your point of view but Mississippi I red somewhere had a population that was composed of 58% slaves & So. Carolina also had over 50%
Virginia had nowhere near that percentage of slaves.

Also the descendants of those slaves in a poll by the progressive NPR network shows a black preference to keep the staues as the are
where they stand 44% to 40%.

How silly this whole 'war on statues' is.:

'Recently, Pelosi branded Confederate monuments as reprehensible and called on Speaker Paul Ryan to join her in removing them.'
“Those statues are right where Nancy Pelosi left them when she was Speaker of the House…

“The truth is, the Democrats have a pretty poor history on Civil Rights, including Nancy Pelosi’s own father who
was the Mayor of Baltimore — and was one of the people who dedicated statues to Robert E. Lee and ‘Stonewall’ Jackson,
and in his speech said that they defended ‘sacred institutions.’ What are those ‘sacred institutions’? One of them is slavery.'

Pelosi maybe forgot about that historical tidbit, maybe her memory is fading faster than the poll numbers are for the
removal of the statues
 
Last edited:
slick said:
Good post for your point of view but Mississippi I red somewhere had a population that was composed of 58% slaves & So. Carolina also had over 50%
Virginia had nowhere near that percentage of slaves.
Click to expand...

Right, I linked to the data and said, "There were about 490,000 slaves in Virginia - more than in any other state - representing about 1/3 of the state's total population, which at the time included the mountainous region which was split off as West Virginia in 1863. " The actual % is 31%, representing 26% of all Virginia families who owned at least one slave.

Also the descendants of those slaves in a poll by the progressive NPR network shows a black preference to keep the staues as the are
where they stand 44% to 40%.
Click to expand...

That's fine but I'm not arguing what the polls say or what people believe.

How silly this whole 'war on statues' is.:

'Recently, Pelosi branded Confederate monuments as reprehensible and called on Speaker Paul Ryan to join her in removing them.'
“Those statues are right where Nancy Pelosi left them when she was Speaker of the House…

“The truth is, the Democrats have a pretty poor history on Civil Rights, including Nancy Pelosi’s own father who
was the Mayor of Baltimore — and was one of the people who dedicated statues to Robert E. Lee and ‘Stonewall’ Jackson,
and in his speech said that they defended ‘sacred institutions.’ What are those ‘sacred institutions’? One of them is slavery.'

Pelosi maybe forgot about that historical tidbit, maybe her memory is fading faster than the poll numbers are for the
removal of the statues
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is here. You're responding to me, but quote Pelosi's father from 1948. I have no idea why that's supposed to be relevant to my post or what I might believe. I could not possibly care less what her father said 75 years ago.

It's not even a good argument that Pelosi is a hypocrite on the issue, unless we're all bound by the views of our parents 75 years in the past.

And, yes, the Democratic party at that time included a bunch of straight up racists, and the South, in which Democrats controlled nearly every legislative body at every level, state and local, enforced Jim Crow. If the party is STILL that same party with the same views, can you explain why roughly 90% of blacks vote democratic, run for office as Democrats? Are they ignorant and unaware of this past and are unknowingly and ignorantly aligning themselves with the TRUE racists, and need white republicans to learn them of this fact?
 
- daddy who is that guy on the statue the people want removed?
- Jubilation T Cornpone, a confederate general
- what did he do?
- he revolted against his country
- why?
- he wanted to keep people as slaves
- people like us?
- yes, pumpkin, people like our family were owned by people like him and worked for free, and lived in shacks on his land
- but at least we were together, right?
- no, they could sell you to someone and that person could take you far away from Virginia to places like Mississippi
- and he wanted to keep doing that?
- yes
- I'm glad they are taking his statue down, but why did it take them so long?

FYI, Jubilation T Cornpone was a mythical character in the musical version of the Lil Abner comic strip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom