• 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!

Is Pancho Villa OK?

What statues should stay up?

  • Remove Confederate Statues, but not Pancho Villa ones

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Remove Both. It is a symbol of murder

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Leave both up... who cares.. plus its good for history

    Votes: 10 83.3%

  • Only white people can be evil

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
dirtpoorchris said:
Just kinda weird when leftists excuse a murderer just because he aligns with lefties but at the same time want confederate statues removed.
Click to expand...

Poncho Villa was a Mexican Revolutionary General who while imperfect was in many ways instrumental in undoing the long-standing dictatorship that controlled the Nation of Mexico. My understanding is that within Mexico he is considered a hero of the revolution even if his side did not ultimately win he was not simply a murderer and he was not defending an institution as disgusting as slavery. What happened during the Mexican Revolution was more like the Hatfields vs the McCoys than it was like the American Civil War. There was no definitive right or wrong side of that fight which can be truly known and as such I don't really take issue with him being honored as a founding father of Mexico nor do I have any issue with there being a statue erected in his honor on U.S. Soil.

With Confederate Statues there is a clear attempt by racist white southerner to legitimize the southern stance as something other than disgusting and deplorable. There is an attempt to ignore and re-write history. They want to use confederate monuments and flags as a means to intimidate minorities and glorify a union that was at its core both treasonous and morally reprehensible. The Confederates didn't just kill people in the midst of battle they were fighting for a cause that was without a doubt completely unjust. They were terrible people not just warriors fighting for control of their own future.

The differences are significant.
 
Fledermaus said:
Many of the generals =/= All of the generals
Click to expand...

No, it's all of the Generals. This is not about how they fought or handled themselves in battle. All wars are hell and are riddled with bad actors. This is about the cause in which they were fighting to begin with. The Confederates were fighting for an immoral and unjust cause in every way imaginable. They were on the wrong side of history. They started the deadliest war in American History in order to keep slavery an institution.

Villa may have been ruthless, but ultimately what he was fighting for was control of his country not simply to implement any one individual policy that was immoral. To compare Villa to someone else throughout history it may be valid to compare him to someone more like a less successful Napoleon in France. He may have been hated by many but for the people of France, he was a leader worth remembering with a degree of honor. The same cannot really be said about any of the Confederates. It wasn't simply their desire for power or control that made them evil it was what they wanted to do with it as well.
 
MrWonka said:
No, it's all of the Generals. This is not about how they fought or handled themselves in battle. All wars are hell and are riddled with bad actors. This is about the cause in which they were fighting to begin with. The Confederates were fighting for an immoral and unjust cause in every way imaginable. They were on the wrong side of history. They started the deadliest war in American History in order to keep slavery an institution.

Villa may have been ruthless, but ultimately what he was fighting for was control of his country not simply to implement any one individual policy that was immoral. To compare Villa to someone else throughout history it may be valid to compare him to someone more like a less successful Napoleon in France. He may have been hated by many but for the people of France, he was a leader worth remembering with a degree of honor. The same cannot really be said about any of the Confederates. It wasn't simply their desire for power or control that made them evil it was what they wanted to do with it as well.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Ive had a mexican gangster say to my face "I wish we can go back to the days of Poncho Villa so we can hang white people from telephone poles".
Click to expand...

So a modern day gangster has praised the virtues of an olden-day gangster? I think this case is solved.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Fort Pillow says otherwise......as do their actions post war.
Click to expand...

About Fort Pillow the battle that you as always attempt to defame Forrest with ‘FAKE NEWS:

A Yankee Congressional investigation found that the black soldiers trying to flee to the Union gunboats under the bluff
blundered into the two Southern companies sent to prevent a Northern landing--failing to surrender;
they made the fatal error of firing on troops protected by ravines on both sides of them. Of course they were cut to shreds...
Forrest was tried for Fort Pillow but proven Innocent.
 
slick said:
About Fort Pillow the battle that you as always attempt to defame Forrest with ‘FAKE NEWS:

A Yankee Congressional investigation found that the black soldiers trying to flee to the Union gunboats under the bluff
blundered into the two Southern companies sent to prevent a Northern landing--failing to surrender;
they made the fatal error of firing on troops protected by ravines on both sides of them. Of course they were cut to shreds...
Forrest was tried for Fort Pillow but proven Innocent.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, "fake news"...... another words for information Trump cultists don't want to hear so they throw a tantrum and shriek "fake".

I know you hate hearing your Klansman hero's crimes detailed, but the facts don't bear up to the pathetic excuses Lost Causers have tried to invent to justify the atrocity.

Forrest's own men admitted

"The poor deluded negros would run up to our men fall on their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The whitte [sic] men fared but little better. The fort turned out to be a great slaughter pen. Blood, human blood stood about in pools and brains could have been gathered up in any quantity. I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time had partially succeeded but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased."

Additionally.....

"A 2002 study by Albert Castel concluded that the Union forces were indiscriminately massacred after Fort Pillow "had ceased resisting or was incapable of resistance."[26] Historian Andrew Ward in 2005 reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Fort Pillow, including the murders of fleeing black civilians, but that the event was not premeditated nor officially sanctioned by Confederate commanders.[27]

Recent histories generally concur that a massacre occurred. Historian Richard Fuchs, the author of An Unerring Fire, concludes, "The affair at Fort Pillow was simply an orgy of death, a mass lynching to satisfy the basest of conduct—intentional murder—for the vilest of reasons—racism and personal enmity."[28] Ward states, "Whether the massacre was premeditated or spontaneous does not address the more fundamental question of whether a massacre took place... it certainly did, in every dictionary sense of the word."[29] John Cimprich states, "The new paradigm in social attitudes and the fuller use of available evidence has favored a massacre interpretation.... Debate over the memory of this incident formed a part of sectional and racial conflicts for many years after the war, but the reinterpretation of the event during the last thirty years offers some hope that society can move beyond past intolerance."[30]"

Forrest himself admitted that the motivation for the slaughter was to try and prevent African Americans from servinh with the US Army.

"The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners."


The casualties also damn your Klansman hero......

"Only 58 (around 20%) black soldiers were marched away as prisoners, whereas 168 (about 60%) of the white soldiers were taken prisoner."

And your heroes had already made it quite clear their willingness to murder African American soldiers and their officers.

"This demand was refused; Confederate Secretary of War Seddon in June 1864 wrote:

I doubt, however, whether the exchange of negroes at all for our soldiers would be tolerated. As to the white officers serving with negro troops, we ought never to be inconvenienced with such prisoners.[46]"


Source:

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

Incompetence and inability to control your own soldiers and prevent them from committing war crimes is not a legitimate excuse.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Ah yes, "fake news"...... another words for information Trump cultists don't want to hear so they throw a tantrum and shriek "fake".

I know you hate hearing your Klansman hero's crimes detailed, but the facts don't bear up to the pathetic excuses Lost Causers have tried to invent to justify the atrocity.

Forrest's own men admitted

"The poor deluded negros would run up to our men fall on their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The whitte [sic] men fared but little better. The fort turned out to be a great slaughter pen. Blood, human blood stood about in pools and brains could have been gathered up in any quantity. I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time had partially succeeded but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased."

Additionally.....

"A 2002 study by Albert Castel concluded that the Union forces were indiscriminately massacred after Fort Pillow "had ceased resisting or was incapable of resistance."[26] Historian Andrew Ward in 2005 reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Fort Pillow, including the murders of fleeing black civilians, but that the event was not premeditated nor officially sanctioned by Confederate commanders.[27]

Recent histories generally concur that a massacre occurred. Historian Richard Fuchs, the author of An Unerring Fire, concludes, "The affair at Fort Pillow was simply an orgy of death, a mass lynching to satisfy the basest of conduct—intentional murder—for the vilest of reasons—racism and personal enmity."[28] Ward states, "Whether the massacre was premeditated or spontaneous does not address the more fundamental question of whether a massacre took place... it certainly did, in every dictionary sense of the word."[29] John Cimprich states, "The new paradigm in social attitudes and the fuller use of available evidence has favored a massacre interpretation.... Debate over the memory of this incident formed a part of sectional and racial conflicts for many years after the war, but the reinterpretation of the event during the last thirty years offers some hope that society can move beyond past intolerance."[30]"

Forrest himself admitted that the motivation for the slaughter was to try and prevent African Americans from servinh with the US Army.

"The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners."


The casualties also damn your Klansman hero......

"Only 58 (around 20%) black soldiers were marched away as prisoners, whereas 168 (about 60%) of the white soldiers were taken prisoner."

And your heroes had already made it quite clear their willingness to murder African American soldiers and their officers.

"This demand was refused; Confederate Secretary of War Seddon in June 1864 wrote:

I doubt, however, whether the exchange of negroes at all for our soldiers would be tolerated. As to the white officers serving with negro troops, we ought never to be inconvenienced with such prisoners.[46]"


Source:

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

Incompetence and inability to control your own soldiers and prevent them from committing war crimes is not a legitimate excuse.
Click to expand...

Even you should know, Tiger old pal that 'Revisionist History' is probably the purest form of 'FAKE News'.
Remember Obama's bombastic flourish 'And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.'

It's been settled as established fact that Forrest was tried for Fort Pillow but proven Innocent. Besides the point,
'The Wizard of the Saddle' had a lot of notches on his gun, he wasn't the type to order the slaughter of surrendering
soldiers. BTW, The General who found Forrest not liable was non other than William T. Sherman!!!!!!!!
 
slick said:
Even you should know, Tiger old pal that 'Revisionist History' is probably the purest form of 'FAKE News'.
Remember Obama's bombastic flourish 'And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.'

It's been settled as established fact that Forrest was tried for Fort Pillow but proven Innocent. Besides the point,
'The Wizard of the Saddle' had a lot of notches on his gun, he wasn't the type to order the slaughter of surrendering
soldiers. BTW, The General who found Forrest not liable was non other than William T. Sherman!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

So in other words you don't have any facts to counter what I stated so you have fallen back to your default--- fawning over your Klansman hero in a desperate hope that if you ignore facts long enough they will go away.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that this is "revisionist history"? Just screeching the term is not proof.


It has been settled that your Klansman hero's troops were responsible for an atrocity, the motives for which have already been detailed, and that while Forrest may not have deliberately ordered the atrocity his inability or unwillingness to control his men and prevent it from happening continues to damn him.

Except for the fact that his troops repeatedly did so, both at Fort Pillow and after the war. But I'm not surprised a wannabe Klansman like yourself is willing to handwave that away.

Here's what Sherman actually said:

"The massacre at Fort Pillow occurred April 12, 1864, and has been the subject of congressional inquiry.[40] No doubt Forrest's men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest's possession, that he was usually very kind to them. He had a desperate set of fellows under him, and at that very time there is no doubt the feeling of the Southern people was fearfully savage on this very point of our making soldiers out of their late slaves, and Forrest may have shared the feeling.[41]"

So in other words we have only Forrest's word, and the opinion of white prisoners, that he may not have directly ordered the massacre which his troops committed......and on other hand we have the statement that at best Forrest was too incompetent to control his own men(rather unsurprising, given the fact that one of his own men had tried to kill him in the past) and may have actively shared his troops' bloodthirst.

That's not absolving Forrest. Not even close.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So in other words you don't have any facts to counter what I stated so you have fallen back to your default--- fawning over your Klansman hero in a desperate hope that if you ignore facts long enough they will go away.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that this is "revisionist history"? Just screeching the term is not proof.


It has been settled that your Klansman hero's troops were responsible for an atrocity, the motives for which have already been detailed, and that while Forrest may not have deliberately ordered the atrocity his inability or unwillingness to control his men and prevent it from happening continues to damn him.

Except for the fact that his troops repeatedly did so, both at Fort Pillow and after the war. But I'm not surprised a wannabe Klansman like yourself is willing to handwave that away.

Here's what Sherman actually said:

"The massacre at Fort Pillow occurred April 12, 1864, and has been the subject of congressional inquiry.[40] No doubt Forrest's men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest's possession, that he was usually very kind to them. He had a desperate set of fellows under him, and at that very time there is no doubt the feeling of the Southern people was fearfully savage on this very point of our making soldiers out of their late slaves, and Forrest may have shared the feeling.[41]"

So in other words we have only Forrest's word, and the opinion of white prisoners, that he may not have directly ordered the massacre which his troops committed......and on other hand we have the statement that at best Forrest was too incompetent to control his own men(rather unsurprising, given the fact that one of his own men had tried to kill him in the past) and may have actively shared his troops' bloodthirst.

That's not absolving Forrest. Not even close.
Click to expand...

So your singing from the same sheet music, not surprising. I hate to ambush you with reality but your
insistence on disparaging the finest cavalryman ever to ride a horse gives me little choice.
 
slick said:
So your singing from the same sheet music, not surprising. I hate to ambush you with reality but your
insistence on disparaging the finest cavalryman ever to ride a horse gives me little choice.
Click to expand...

You have done no such thing. Again, you provided zero facts. The only thing have done is fawned over your Klansman hero and desperately tried to handwave away the atrocities he was responsible for.

Forrest was totally unable to keep the Confederates in his area of operations from being crushed. At best he managed to desperately hold off total annihilation. Your hero worship is laughable.
 
Fledermaus said:
Broad brushing all of the Confederates who served noted.....
Click to expand...

Confederates had a cause they were fighting for. That cause was slavery. When you have a cause that you're fighting for it's not prejudiced to say you're fighting for that cause. That's like saying it's prejudice to claim that all of the Avengers were against Thanos. I suppose you think that it's prejudice to assume that every Mother that's a member of M.A.D.D. is Against Drunk Driving. Nope, that does not prejudice that is literally what they were doing. By your logic, it's wrong to say that the Nazis murdered the Jews, or that the Taliban attacked us on 9/11.
 
MrWonka said:
Confederates had a cause they were fighting for. That cause was slavery. When you have a cause that you're fighting for it's not prejudiced to say you're fighting for that cause. That's like saying it's prejudice to claim that all of the Avengers were against Thanos. I suppose you think that it's prejudice to assume that every Mother that's a member of M.A.D.D. is Against Drunk Driving. Nope, that does not prejudice that is literally what they were doing. By your logic, it's wrong to say that the Nazis murdered the Jews, or that the Taliban attacked us on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Broad bushing again.

Many confederates fought because their state/country was invaded. Many others were conscripted and did not have the money to buy themselves out of conscription. Others enlisted for the perceived glory of the battlefield.

Not all Confederates fought for the preservation of slavery.
 
Fledermaus said:
Many confederates fought because their state/country was invaded. Many others were conscripted and did not have the money to buy themselves out of conscription. Others enlisted for the perceived glory of the battlefield.

Not all Confederates fought for the preservation of slavery.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. In 1930's Germany there were many Germans who supported Hitler because they thought he'd Make Germany Great Again. They thought he was a strong leader who would put German interests first. Most of them didn't really want to murder the Jews. They didn't like the jews a lot, but they thought that if the Jews didn't like being discriminated against they should just go back to where they came from. You know what we called those Germans?..... Nazis. It didn't matter why they voted for Hitler they still did it. They were still responsible for the Holocaust. They still let it happen, and they still helped it happen. What level of devotion they had for it may lighten their sentence, but they all deserve a measure of punishment for it. Certainly no honor whatsoever.

The same is true of the Confederates. There was no valid excuse for supporting Slavery or for supporting a war that would support Slavery. The first shots of the Civil War were fired by the South. They were not being invaded. They chose to succeed from the United States because they wanted Slavery to remain, and they chose to go to war to try and make that happen. They tried to take American lands away from America. They were traitors to the United States of America and their treason caused the deadliest war in all of American History. They do not get to be honored for that.

Ignorance is not an excuse for Treason, and you do not honor the ignorant.
 
MrWonka said:
Yes, they did. In 1930's Germany there were many Germans who supported Hitler because they thought he'd Make Germany Great Again. They thought he was a strong leader who would put German interests first. Most of them didn't really want to murder the Jews. They didn't like the jews a lot, but they thought that if the Jews didn't like being discriminated against they should just go back to where they came from. You know what we called those Germans?..... Nazis. It didn't matter why they voted for Hitler they still did it. They were still responsible for the Holocaust. They still let it happen, and they still helped it happen. What level of devotion they had for it may lighten their sentence, but they all deserve a measure of punishment for it. Certainly no honor whatsoever.

The same is true of the Confederates. There was no valid excuse for supporting Slavery or for supporting a war that would support Slavery. The first shots of the Civil War were fired by the South. They were not being invaded. They chose to succeed from the United States because they wanted Slavery to remain, and they chose to go to war to try and make that happen. They tried to take American lands away from America. They were traitors to the United States of America and their treason caused the deadliest war in all of American History. They do not get to be honored for that.

Ignorance is not an excuse for Treason, and you do not honor the ignorant.
Click to expand...

So you support a murderer and theif that attacked and burned a US town....

Simply because he wasn't a Confederate.
 
Fledermaus said:
So you support a murderer and theif that attacked and burned a US town....

Simply because he wasn't a Confederate.
Click to expand...

It seems you can get away with anything as long as you weren't defending slavery.

Slavery seems to be the line in the sand here.
 
Fledermaus said:
So you support a murderer and theif that attacked and burned a US town....

Simply because he wasn't a Confederate.
Click to expand...

The Confederates held people like James and Quantrill—who did plenty of burning—-as heroes.

Some southerners still celebrate them to this day.

How is what Pancho Villa did any different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom