• 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!

Memphis's Novel Strategy for Tearing Down Confederate Statues

Obviously another prime example of lack of education in the American history department.
It's a shame to watch the distortion of a nation's history and its war heroes.

I'll never consider treasonous losers as "war heroes." The only "history department" in which this guys are "heroes" is in those specializing in the myth of the Lost Cause.
 
Memphis is still a crime-ridden cesspool with or without those statues. The world is no different with the statues gone and neither is Memphis.

Technically they need to tear down all these reminders that the slavers, racists, kkk, nazi proponents of the final solution via planned parenthood were all democrats/ "progressives" and still are. The policies of plan, take, and deny are still the main game in town. Covering up the lies for generations is necessary for the con to continue. Keeping the people ignorant of history is critical. This is a sound strategy.
 
I'll never consider treasonous losers as "war heroes." The only "history department" in which this guys are "heroes" is in those specializing in the myth of the Lost Cause.

Thirty years ago, when I came here on my very first visit, I never thought this country would eventually turn into a self-hating nation.

But I still have hope as there are more normal people in the US of A than the foul-mouthed, ignorant PC crowd.
 
'The majority of Confederate generals did not own slaves and did not come from slaveholding families
(Hattaway and Beringer, Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, p. 37).'

The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and supported
emancipation in various forms. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Johnston called it "a curse."
Other Confederate generals who supported emancipation included General Daniel Govan, General John Kelly, and General Mark Lowrey.'

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman
had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.he didn’t free his slaves
earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”

'On the other hand contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited)
in 1862! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts.
And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!'

The fact remains that the 'holier than thou" crowd has a big 'hole' in there argument.

I'm not going to refute that point by point, but it's almost entirely false. :roll:

As to Lee, yes, he inherited a bunch of slaves, and held them as slaves for as long as possible according to the terms of the will he was legally bound to follow. So the idea that "freeing" the slaves in 1862 was some kind of act of kindness is just complete nonsense. As to his opposition to slavery, perhaps, but he sure didn't countenance uppity slaves trying to escape:

Robert E. Lee: His Brutality to His Slaves (1866). By Wesley Norris in NATIONAL ANTI-SLAVERY STANDARD Vol. XXVI. No. 49 (April 14, 1866). Whole No. 1,349 // Fair Use Repository

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was 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 of lashes 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.

Seriously, you really need to check your sources. There's practically an industry of people spreading Lost Cause nonsense.
 
Thirty years ago, when I came here on my very first visit, I never thought this country would eventually turn into a self-hating nation.

But I still have hope as there are more normal people in the US of A than the foul-mouthed, ignorant PC crowd.

I love my country, which is why I don't honor traitors. Sounds reasonable. I'm also a Southern native, my family has lived in the South since before there was a United States, and it's not self hating to admit your faults, and be proud of the progress this region has made, a lot of it during my lifetime - following the end of Jim Crow.

What is embarrassing are the ignorant people spreading Lost Cause BS which only serves to hide the truth about what happened and why. Lying to ourselves about our own history is NOT a noble act - it's the act of cowards, too afraid to confront their own actual history.
 
Last edited:
While we are removing "offensive statues" lets remove the Statue of Liberty, which at the time of its donation to the U.S. the U.S. was oppressing Native Americans. Let's remove the Stature of Christopher Columbus from Columbus Circle in NY, a man who took Natives as slaves and brought disease to Turtle Island. Let's remove Mt. Rushmore, this land was taken from the Native Americans and it was a sacred place in the Black Hills. Lets remove all Statues of Andrew Jackson also know as "Indian Killer" and those of Custer. Geez, while we're at it lets not forget the Washington Monument, for he was a slave holder, or the Jefferson Memorial.

We can go on and on, but, you know, no matter how hard they try and erase history, it's still going to be there.

Those people could always open a book or turn on their computer to read about the history but I guess some people prefer learning history visually with no context.
 
Technically they need to tear down all these reminders that the slavers, racists, kkk, nazi proponents of the final solution via planned parenthood were all democrats/ "progressives" and still are. The policies of plan, take, and deny are still the main game in town. Covering up the lies for generations is necessary for the con to continue. Keeping the people ignorant of history is critical. This is a sound strategy.

That's just delusional nonsense.

From what I can gather, Republicans want to keep up statues honoring treasonous slave traders and other assorted failed white supremacists so the real history of the Democratic Party is kept front and center? That's really what you're going with?

LMMFAO. That's the lamest defense of these statues yet, and we've seen some good ones!

BTW, "progressives...."! :shock: :lamo
 
Good thing those Confederate rebel assholes just fought a war against the US and didn't do anything drastic like kneel before the flag. That would have really made it obvious they were traitors.
 
That's just delusional nonsense.

From what I can gather, Republicans want to keep up statues honoring treasonous slave traders and other assorted failed white supremacists so the real history of the Democratic Party is kept front and center? That's really what you're going with?

LMMFAO. That's the lamest defense of these statues yet, and we've seen some good ones!

BTW, "progressives...."! :shock: :lamo

I cannot speak to the motives of "republicans". You added that all on your own. Only to the history of democrats.

Swing by a library sometime.

You can find out about the train of tears, reservations, slavery and who owned them, kkk, plantations, sharecroppers, welfare, planned parenthood and the sanger nazi connections, FDR, LBJ, etc. Its all there...at least until the book burners, and "progressive" sanitizers of history get rid of it all.
 
I love my country, which is why I don't honor traitors. Sounds reasonable. I'm also a Southern native, my family has lived in the South since before there was a United States, and it's not self hating to admit your faults, and be proud of the progress this region has made, a lot of it during my lifetime - following the end of Jim Crow.

What is embarrassing are the ignorant people spreading Lost Cause BS which only serves to hide the truth about what happened and why. Lying to ourselves about our own history is NOT a noble act - it's the act of cowards, too afraid to confront their own actual history.


If you can't accept the fact that these guys lived more than 200 years ago, at a time with different values, standards and objectives, then you have to condemn every US soldier who fought in WWII 70 years ago.

Their objective was to defeat Nazis; their ultimate action resulted in carpet-bombing Germany and its civilian population.
In a 150 years this type of warfare will be called genocide.
Are you looking forward to having those men classified as mass murderers?

Accept your history and put these men and their actions into perspective - what they achieved at their time and not how you would compare it to living 200 years later.
 
Thirty years ago, when I came here on my very first visit, I never thought this country would eventually turn into a self-hating nation.

But I still have hope as there are more normal people in the US of A than the foul-mouthed, ignorant PC crowd.

They really seem trapped in their own minds this year especially. I agree it can be a chore to educate them. I think its worth doing though.

Keep at it. One cannot attempt to put their own perceptions and culture onto the events of centuries past without looking foolish.

Hindsight is such a cheat.
 
I cannot speak to the motives of "republicans". You added that all on your own. Only to the history of democrats.

Swing by a library sometime.

You can find out about the train of tears, reservations, slavery and who owned them, kkk, plantations, sharecroppers, welfare, planned parenthood and the sanger nazi connections, FDR, LBJ, etc. Its all there...at least until the book burners, and "progressive" sanitizers of history get rid of it all.

Well, we were talking about monuments, and it's Republicans who were legally forcing Memphis to keep those up.

I understand you want to change the subject to bashing the Democratic Party, the real racists apparently. In Alabama, where I am now, about 98% of blacks voted for the Democrat in the recent Senate race. Guess they are too stupid to know this history of which you speak. Dunno..... I wouldn't allege that myself, having respect for blacks and their knowledge of history and race and politics, particularly in the South, but if that's what you're going with, that's fine I guess!
 
I'm not going to refute that point by point, but it's almost entirely false. :roll:

As to Lee, yes, he inherited a bunch of slaves, and held them as slaves for as long as possible according to the terms of the will he was legally bound to follow. So the idea that "freeing" the slaves in 1862 was some kind of act of kindness is just complete nonsense. As to his opposition to slavery, perhaps, but he sure didn't countenance uppity slaves trying to escape:

Robert E. Lee: His Brutality to His Slaves (1866). By Wesley Norris in NATIONAL ANTI-SLAVERY STANDARD Vol. XXVI. No. 49 (April 14, 1866). Whole No. 1,349 // Fair Use Repository



Seriously, you really need to check your sources. There's practically an industry of people spreading Lost Cause nonsense.

My sources, yikes. While bothering to present this Norris stuff I imagine your suggesting it's the gospel truth.

Wow! 'In the case of the Norris testimony, the two competing narratives we have are as old as the testimony itself.
From the very end of the Civil War, there are efforts to paint Robert Lee as both a heroic and a villainous figure,
according to the particular biases of the two sides of the conflict." That's obvious

You stick to your version of the general who owned 0 slaves, when he led an army north to Gettysburg with as solid a faith
in their leader as any veteran army that ever marched! I'll stick to mine!
 
If you can't accept the fact that these guys lived more than 200 years ago, at a time with different values, standards and objectives

What are we "honoring" with a statue of Jefferson Davis if not his treasonous history, as "president" of a CSA whose corner-stone rests on the idea that slavery is blacks proper role in society?

then you have to condemn every US soldier who fought in WWII 70 years ago.

Their objective was to defeat Nazis; their ultimate action resulted in carpet-bombing Germany and its civilian population.
In a 150 years this type of warfare will be called genocide.
Are you looking forward to having those men classified as mass murderers?

Accept your history and put these men and their actions into perspective - what they achieved at their time and not how you would compare it to living 200 years later.

I'm ignoring the red herring of WWII veterans, except to say the cause for which they fought was in fact honorable. I can't say that about the cause, slavery, for which Forrest or other CSA traitors fought.

I do accept this region's history, and because I accept it I recognize that there is no reason to honor men who fought for an evil cause, the institution of slavery. Jefferson Davis was unremarkable as a historical figure except as President of CSA. What about that role deserves a place of honor in a public square in Memphis? N.B. Forrest was a more complicated man, and honorable in his own way, certainly a military great of his time. But he fought against the United States of America, and I see no reason why he deserves a permanent place of honor in our public spaces. Museums, or Civil War cemeteries? Fine. History books? Absolutely? Public square? Hell no, IMO.


And more than anything else, if you want to recognize the good in Forrest, great. But ultimately who a community places positions of honor is THEIR decision, and in a free society the community ought to have the prerogative to change it. It's fact that white supremacists in a time of Jim Crow in Memphis installed that monument as a monument to the still-enforced supremacy of the white man over blacks. Blacks in Memphis at that time were functionally unable to vote, hold office, or have a say in political decisions of the time. Why would the black community in Memphis forever be bound by decisions they were prohibited by Jim Crow laws at that time from having a say in making?
 
Last edited:
My sources, yikes. While bothering to present this Norris stuff I imagine your suggesting it's the gospel truth.

Wow! 'In the case of the Norris testimony, the two competing narratives we have are as old as the testimony itself.
From the very end of the Civil War, there are efforts to paint Robert Lee as both a heroic and a villainous figure,
according to the particular biases of the two sides of the conflict." That's obvious

You stick to your version of the general who owned 0 slaves, when he led an army north to Gettysburg with as solid a faith
in their leader as any veteran army that ever marched! I'll stick to mine!

I cited the testimony of an eye witness - the person flogged at Lee's instruction. If you have EVIDENCE that it is false, that contradicts this eye witness testimony, present it.

As to your history, it's just factually false in just about every respect, the kind of thing that literally gets spread in the old days by email chains and now by Facebook and really is "fake news." Again, if you want to quote Civil War historians supporting those claims, then do it. I know you cannot because I've seen those claims debunked many times.

Bottom line is if you believe your stories, you can cite legitimate sources for those claims, and should do so. There is probably more written about the Civil War than just about any topic so you'll have plenty of legitimate sources to choose from versus the unsourced myth you did post. Sorry but that's just the way it is.
 
They really seem trapped in their own minds this year especially. I agree it can be a chore to educate them. I think its worth doing though.

Keep at it. One cannot attempt to put their own perceptions and culture onto the events of centuries past without looking foolish.

Hindsight is such a cheat.

If you want to "educate" we liberals, present legitimate sources. Pretty simple!
 
I cited the testimony of an eye witness - the person flogged at Lee's instruction. If you have EVIDENCE that it is false, that contradicts this eye witness testimony, present it.

As to your history, it's just factually false in just about every respect, the kind of thing that literally gets spread in the old days by email chains and now by Facebook and really is "fake news." Again, if you want to quote Civil War historians supporting those claims, then do it. I know you cannot because I've seen those claims debunked many times.

Bottom line is if you believe your stories, you can cite legitimate sources for those claims, and should do so. There is probably more written about the Civil War than just about any topic so you'll have plenty of legitimate sources to choose from versus the unsourced myth you did post. Sorry but that's just the way it is.

'Sorry but that's just the way it is.' in your biased mind that's certain. Anyway thanx for the advice, I suppose!

'In this particular case, we seem to have a perfectly balanced argument: we have Robert Lee who privately denies
the allegations made against him, and we have someone claiming to be one of his ex-slaves making the allegation.
There are no possible independent witnesses to the story; every other party to the incident has a vested interest
in advancing one particular half of the narrative. You might have noticed, though, that the Testimony of Wesley Norris
is not actually written by Norris. The article notes that it was in fact "taken from the lips of one of his former slaves";
in other words, dictated, not written, by him. In the antebellum South, it had been uniformly illegal for slaves to be
literate in all but exceptional circumstances - most ex-slaves in 1866 would not have been able to read and write if
they were recently emancipated. As you might be guessing then, this means that the Testimony almost certainly
has a white author. Taken on its own then, the Testimony is very difficult to substantiate; does Wesley Norris exist?
If he did exist, can we be sure that his testimony has authentically been written down? Can we even be sure that
he was consulted before it was written with his name attached to it?

So historians have to be careful when looking at accounts that pruport to be by slaves.' Got it? probably not!
 
Last edited:
Well, we were talking about monuments, and it's Republicans who were legally forcing Memphis to keep those up.

I understand you want to change the subject to bashing the Democratic Party, the real racists apparently. In Alabama, where I am now, about 98% of blacks voted for the Democrat in the recent Senate race. Guess they are too stupid to know this history of which you speak. Dunno..... I wouldn't allege that myself, having respect for blacks and their knowledge of history and race and politics, particularly in the South, but if that's what you're going with, that's fine I guess!

It is a simple correction of the misconception that someone other than democrats put those statues up in the first place. The subject is the tearing down of historical works of art. There is a reason but it is not a simple reason for anyone but a mob.
The ignorance of Americans to their own history is the direct result of the hijacking of the educational system. (You call blacks stupid. I think people in general are distracted willfully and with purpose.)

Make Democrats 'eat' the fact they erected many Confederate monuments

"starting in the seventeenth century and continuing through the nineteenth century, slavery came under attack. The attack was two-pronged. The first prong of the attack was the American founding, which had no power to end slavery but which established a framework for reducing, corralling, and ultimately placing slavery on a path to extinction. The second force, which emerged almost a century later, was the Republican Party, a party explicitly founded to block and then eliminate slavery, healing the “crisis of the house divided” and creating a single union of free citizens.
These attacks on slavery provoked the defense of slavery that formed the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party in the South invented the “positive good” school that argued slavery was good not only for the master but also for the slave. The champion of this school was the Democratic Senator John C. Calhoun. Northern Democrats, led by Senator Stephen Douglas, produced a subtler but no less invidious apologia for slavery: “popular sovereignty,” a doctrine that allowed each state and territory to decide for itself whether it wanted slavery.
Democrats on the Supreme Court also forged the majority in the notorious Dred Scott decision that upheld slavery and insisted that blacks have no rights that a white man needs to respect. Democratic presidents after Jackson—from Polk to Buchanan—protected slavery from abolitionist, free soil, and Republican attack.
Even during the Civil War, many northern Democrats—the so-called Copperheads or Peace Democrats—took the side of the Confederacy, urging Lincoln to make a deal with the slave-owning South. They tried, unsuccessfully, to defeat Lincoln for reelection in 1864. Finally, even after Lee surrendered at Appomattox, a small group of Democrats made a last-ditch attempt to save their cherished institution by assassinating Lincoln.Nothing I write in this chapter is controversial in terms of whether it happened or not. I am relying on the mainstream historians of slavery: David Brion Davis, Kenneth Stampp, Eugene Genovese, Orlando Patterson. How, then, can my arguments sound so outrageous? The reason is that progressive Democrats have whitewashed the party’s history. They have cleaned up the record.
How? They have done it in two ways. The first is to take the crimes of the Democratic Party and blame them on America. Progressives today are quick to fault “America” for slavery and a host of other outrages. America did this, America did that. As we will see in this book, America didn’t do those things, the Democrats did. So the Democrats have cleverly foisted their sins on America, and then presented themselves as the messiahs offering redemption for those sins. It’s crazy, but it’s also ingenious. We have to give them credit for ingenuity." ---Hillarys America...Dinesh Desouza
 
continued---

"The second whitewash is to portray the Civil War entirely in terms of the North versus the South. The North is supposedly the anti-slavery side and the South is the pro-slavery side. A recent example is Ta-Nehisi Coates’s article about the Confederate battle flag in The Atlantic.3 Now of course there is an element of truth in this, in that the Civil War was fought between northern states and southern states. But this neat and convenient division ignores several important details.
First, the defenders of the Confederate cause were, almost without exception, Democrats. Coates cites many malefactors from Senator Jefferson Davis to Senator James Henry Hammond to Georgia Governor Joseph Brown. Yet while identifying these men as southerners and Confederates, Coates omits to identify them as Democrats.
Second, Coates and other progressives conveniently ignore the fact that northern Democrats were also protectors of slavery. We will see in this chapter how Stephen Douglas and other northern Democrats fought to protect slavery in the South and in the new territories. Moreover, the southerners who fought for the Confederacy cannot be said to have fought merely to protect slavery on their plantations. Indeed, fewer than one-third of white families in the South on the eve of the Civil War had slaves.
Thus the rigid North-South interpretation of the Civil War conceals—and is intended to conceal—the active complicity of Democrats across the country to save, protect, and even extend the “peculiar institution.” As the Charleston Mercury editorialized during the secession debate, the duty of the South was to “rally under the banner of the Democratic Party which has recognized and supported . . . the rights of the South.”4
The real divide was between the Democratic Party as the upholder of slavery and the Republican Party as the adversary of slavery. All the figures who upheld and defended American slavery—Senators John C. Calhoun and Stephen Douglas, President James Buchanan, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, architect of the Dred Scott decision, and the main leaders of the Confederacy—were Democrats.
All the heroes of black emancipation—from the black abolitionists Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, to the woman who organized the Underground Railroad, Harriet Tubman, to the leader whose actions finally destroyed American slavery, Abraham Lincoln—were Republicans. "Hillarys America---Dinesh Desouza
 
Ah, yes, the old standby WHATABOUISM!! "You are NOT doing this task that I've decided is more important for YOU to do at this moment, therefore what you did decide to do is illegitimate!!" If is, of course, possible for human beings to do more than one thing at a time. Furthermore, we can take dumb whataboutism to extremes any way we want.

E.g. Isn't it funny that these conservative types worry about what NFL players do before a football game while they ignore flesh and blood people that could use their help.
- Isn't it funny that these conservative types worry about gay marriage, while they ignore flesh and blood that could use their help, etc.

And the right wingers in the TN legislature have recently passed not one but TWO laws worrying about which piece of metal and stone Memphis has in its city parks. It's actually a legitimate thing for a city to care about its parks - that is their job. But if you really want to attack people doing stuff way the hell out of their proper concern, when our state has all kinds of serious issues that need addressing, point that "conservative" finger at yours at your fellow wingnuts in the legislature who promise to pass MORE legislation, start investigations, etc. over this issue. Seems they have an strange affinity for treasonous failed "Presidents" of failed "countries" and other assorted white supremacists and losers.

Also, too, you'll need a cite for your BS assertion that people don't ask, or receive, charitable donations from NFL players. That's false you know. Look at the guy who started the kneeling thing for starters.

May I please shake your virtual hand, please?

Though you took exception to what I said, I did not see one personal attack, insult, or nasty comment there.
Because of this I will go back and read your post in more detail and examine your points.
This means, yes, I will listen to you and see if what you said makes any sense.
Yes, you called my assertion BS, but did not call me BS, just my assertion.
This means i will not shut you off and actually listen, because no one will listen to anyone who insults, attacks or gets personal with them.
I have no idea how some others expect to be listened to when they do the opposite.

Because of this I will most assuredly do the homework and research you suggest.
It would not be the first time i was wrong.
Fair enough?
 
Last edited:
The Civil War was ultimately fought to preserve the state's rights to legalized slavery within the state's borders. The cause of the confederacy could not have been more evil and despicable. Why on earth would we want statutes up in public parks honoring the men that fought for such a despicable cause? Put them in history books and museums. You don't honor such an evil cause with statues and monuments. We don't have monuments to Nazi generals in Germany. Moreover, we are not talking about men like George Washington, our first president and Revolutionary War general that also happened to own some slaves. Slavery is what these men are known for. They would be unknown to history if it were not for slavery and the Civil War, so its a flawed comparison to compare them to others.

As to "racial division". Anyone that gets angry about a confederate memorial coming down in 2017, was a racist to begin with.

I can't SJW types either, but taking down monuments to slavery is not just some PC bull****, its common decency.

I do not expect other to understand it, but because of your politeness, I will offer an explanation.
You may not agree with it, but it will be an explanation....and it has nothing to do with slavery.
It is not for debate, but as an explanation to help your understand the mindset.

Go to any cemetery in the south and you will see Confederate veterans headstones marked with the rank they had, and sometimes the unit they served in.
These veterans were the son, fathers and brothers who served in a vicious war in which they lost.
Southern pride is a big thing, and loosing a war is even worse.
Especially one so brutal and horrific it affected almost everyone alive at the time. Yankees too.
One town in Tennessee had a regiment of 1,000 and only 3 came back.

These statues were erected in solemn remembrance of those same son, fathers, and brothers who died.
They were also used as a symbol to look up to in that remembrance as an inspiration to never repeat itself again.

Now, that being so, how dare someone from some other part of the country come to their town and try and tear their statue down.
My great grandfather's name is on that statue and you had best leave it alone or you will not be welcome here.
Stay in our motels, eat in our diners, enjoy the polite hospitality we extend to you, but leave our heritage and history alone.
It is ours, and not yours to mess with.

If we, as a community, vote to remove them, then it is still our business and not some outsiders.
If we, as a community, choose to leave them alone, then that is our business too.
Outsiders .......stay out of our community business.

Its a SOUTHERN thing, and most Yankees would not understand it.
We know the war is over, yet some Yankees still want to keep fighting it.
Be careful what you wish for.

Now, would you like another deep dish helping of this homemade peach cobbler?
 
Thirty years ago, when I came here on my very first visit, I never thought this country would eventually turn into a self-hating nation.

But I still have hope as there are more normal people in the US of A than the foul-mouthed, ignorant PC crowd.

There are plenty of nice people around. You can rest easy. People say and write things on the internet sometimes merely to inflame and look for a reaction.
From sea to shining sea, you will find almost everyone you meet to be very nice, pleasant, and willing to help.
Forums are where a particular few decide to bring their hate and hateful attitudes due to the anonymity.
Each and every time I log on, i see this.

It is best to put them in a place you will never have the displeasure of ever seeing from them again for the rest of your life.
No great loss, either.
I have found they tend to post from a very old and predictable prewritten script. Almost as if on queue.
 
Last edited:
'Sorry but that's just the way it is.' in your biased mind that's certain. Anyway thanx for the advice, I suppose!

'In this particular case, we seem to have a perfectly balanced argument: we have Robert Lee who privately denies
the allegations made against him, and we have someone claiming to be one of his ex-slaves making the allegation.

There are no possible independent witnesses to the story; every other party to the incident has a vested interest
in advancing one particular half of the narrative. You might have noticed, though, that the Testimony of Wesley Norris
is not actually written by Norris. The article notes that it was in fact "taken from the lips of one of his former slaves";
in other words, dictated, not written, by him. ... Taken on its own then, the Testimony is very difficult to substantiate; does Wesley Norris exist?
If he did exist, can we be sure that his testimony has authentically been written down? Can we even be sure that
he was consulted before it was written with his name attached to it?

So historians have to be careful when looking at accounts that pruport to be by slaves.' Got it? probably not!

I have no idea who you cited, but he or she is a hack. It's just NOT a "perfectly balanced," he said, she said argument. In fact there are five accounts of the beatings, a record of the payment to the constable who whipped the two slaves, a record that the person quoted was a slave, and those accounts are all consistent. On the other side is Lee, who never publicly disputed any of those allegations.

And your source says this:

On the other hand contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited)
in 1862! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts.
And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!'

That's entirely misleading. He was executor of his father in law's estate, the will of which said this:

https://americancivilwar.com/author...ral-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html

"And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executor in such manner as he deems expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."

Well, the man died in 1857 and the slaves were freed in 1862. So Lee kept them as slaves for the maximum amount of time that the will allowed. No more, no less.

Your source said this: "The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and supported
emancipation in various forms." There is no evidence anywhere that Lee favored "emancipation" except as some theoretical idea at some unknown point in the future and as a result of unknown causes, none of which he supported during his life. In fact he fought for a country whose corner stone was laid on the premise that slavery was the proper role for blacks.

Your source also said "U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865."

That is false. https://www.nps.gov/ulsg/learn/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned.

He worked for a time on the plantation of his father in law, but he couldn't free any of those slaves because they were not his to "free."

Your source attributes this quote to Grant, for reasons he didn't free slaves he did not own: "he didn’t free his slaves
earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”
. That quote sounds made up by a 12 year old, and there is no evidence Grant stated it.

As to Sherman, you source says this: William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. That's also made up. It's possible at some points in life he might have owned a slaver or two, such as when stationed in SC and LA, but he was career military who frequently lived in states that has outlawed slavery, and at the time of the Civil War there is NO evidence he owned any slaves, much less "many" and so it's quite impossible for him to have freed these slaves he didn't own at any time, much less "late in 1865."

If you want to argue about legitimate sources, that's fine, but you first have to CITE legitimate sources. You've been citing the equivalent of chain emails so far.
 
It is a simple correction of the misconception that someone other than democrats put those statues up in the first place. The subject is the tearing down of historical works of art. There is a reason but it is not a simple reason for anyone but a mob.
The ignorance of Americans to their own history is the direct result of the hijacking of the educational system. (You call blacks stupid. I think people in general are distracted willfully and with purpose.)

Make Democrats 'eat' the fact they erected many Confederate monuments

"starting in the seventeenth century and continuing through the nineteenth century, slavery came under attack. The attack was two-pronged. The first prong of the attack was the American founding, which had no power to end slavery but which established a framework for reducing, corralling, and ultimately placing slavery on a path to extinction. The second force, which emerged almost a century later, was the Republican Party, a party explicitly founded to block and then eliminate slavery, healing the “crisis of the house divided” and creating a single union of free citizens.
These attacks on slavery provoked the defense of slavery that formed the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party in the South invented the “positive good” school that argued slavery was good not only for the master but also for the slave. The champion of this school was the Democratic Senator John C. Calhoun. Northern Democrats, led by Senator Stephen Douglas, produced a subtler but no less invidious apologia for slavery: “popular sovereignty,” a doctrine that allowed each state and territory to decide for itself whether it wanted slavery.
Democrats on the Supreme Court also forged the majority in the notorious Dred Scott decision that upheld slavery and insisted that blacks have no rights that a white man needs to respect. Democratic presidents after Jackson—from Polk to Buchanan—protected slavery from abolitionist, free soil, and Republican attack.
Even during the Civil War, many northern Democrats—the so-called Copperheads or Peace Democrats—took the side of the Confederacy, urging Lincoln to make a deal with the slave-owning South. They tried, unsuccessfully, to defeat Lincoln for reelection in 1864. Finally, even after Lee surrendered at Appomattox, a small group of Democrats made a last-ditch attempt to save their cherished institution by assassinating Lincoln.Nothing I write in this chapter is controversial in terms of whether it happened or not. I am relying on the mainstream historians of slavery: David Brion Davis, Kenneth Stampp, Eugene Genovese, Orlando Patterson. How, then, can my arguments sound so outrageous? The reason is that progressive Democrats have whitewashed the party’s history. They have cleaned up the record.
How? They have done it in two ways. The first is to take the crimes of the Democratic Party and blame them on America. Progressives today are quick to fault “America” for slavery and a host of other outrages. America did this, America did that. As we will see in this book, America didn’t do those things, the Democrats did. So the Democrats have cleverly foisted their sins on America, and then presented themselves as the messiahs offering redemption for those sins. It’s crazy, but it’s also ingenious. We have to give them credit for ingenuity." ---Hillarys America...Dinesh Desouza

Good gosh - the punch line is at the end - Dinesh Desouza. Why not cite Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as your source?

Bottom line is we can have a debate about the reasons why the white South flipped from solid Democrat (because Lincoln was a Republican) to now solid GOP, and with those changes blacks also changed political parties in the South from Republican (because Jim Crow whites were Democrats) to now Democrats. But any analysis like that stupid hack Desouza's which doesn't account for those changes is just worthless, partisan drivel.

Not to mention, you've avoided the actual topic to divert the discussion to a general bash democrats thread. Why do you support the white, GOP legislature in Tennessee dictating to Memphis to keep up statues of dead failed Confederates?
 
I do not expect other to understand it, but because of your politeness, I will offer an explanation.
You may not agree with it, but it will be an explanation....and it has nothing to do with slavery.
It is not for debate, but as an explanation to help your understand the mindset.

Go to any cemetery in the south and you will see Confederate veterans headstones marked with the rank they had, and sometimes the unit they served in.
These veterans were the son, fathers and brothers who served in a vicious war in which they lost.
Southern pride is a big thing, and loosing a war is even worse.
Especially one so brutal and horrific it affected almost everyone alive at the time. Yankees too.
One town in Tennessee had a regiment of 1,000 and only 3 came back.

These statues were erected in solemn remembrance of those same son, fathers, and brothers who died.
They were also used as a symbol to look up to in that remembrance as an inspiration to never repeat itself again.

On what basis can you make that statement. Within just a few years, after the slaves had been freed by the Civil War, the same men who fought for slavery seized control of the state legislatures and instituted legalized second class status for blacks, a system in which they could not vote, hold office, sit on juries, serve in many jobs, and were subject to society-wide segregation and discrimination. THAT is the context in which these statues to white supremacists went up - at a time when white supremacists controlled every lever of power in the South, and imposed a state-sanctioned regime of white supremacy and black second class status.

Now, that being so, how dare someone from some other part of the country come to their town and try and tear their statue down.
My great grandfather's name is on that statue and you had best leave it alone or you will not be welcome here.
Stay in our motels, eat in our diners, enjoy the polite hospitality we extend to you, but leave our heritage and history alone.
It is ours, and not yours to mess with.

If you're talking about the OP, the city of Memphis and the citizens of Memphis are the ones trying to "tear the statue down" - those efforts date back YEARS, and the state of Tennessee has thwarted their efforts at every step. Those wanting the statues down didn't come from anywhere else. No need. For some reason blacks in Memphis would rather honor someone other than a slave trading, KKK founder and Confederate general in their public parks. Weird, huh, that blacks don't look at a guy like that as a hero???!!

If we, as a community, vote to remove them, then it is still our business and not some outsiders.
If we, as a community, choose to leave them alone, then that is our business too.
Outsiders .......stay out of our community business.

But the OP involves legislators in Nashville, white republicans, forcing local communities to keep up those statues.

Its a SOUTHERN thing, and most Yankees would not understand it.
We know the war is over, yet some Yankees still want to keep fighting it.
Be careful what you wish for.

Now, would you like another deep dish helping of this homemade peach cobbler?

Yeah, the war is over but this thread is evidence a lot of lies about the war and its aftermath live on. That's in part why monuments to these men need to come down IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom