Down goes General Lee[W:525]

[BillRM]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Sure there is, if these monuments are coming down because they were slave owners, so was Washington, go ahead and tell me, but that's different, yada yada!

An both was rebels in arms toward their current governments.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

An both was rebels in arms toward their current governments.

Oh, but that's different, not one, but TWO double standards!

 

[katzgar]

Re: Down goes General Lee

No Lee would had help to created a new country just like Washington did as a matter of fact.

to the victor go the spoils. washington was a victor lee wasnt

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Down goes General Lee

The 1869 SCOTUS ruling was a case of Winners writing history. Scalia, whom I admired, was just quoting chapter and verse out of the post-Civil War bible of Americana. The Winners have retroactively insured that the South was in the wrong and the North in the right.

But it's the official story now, the official bull****. At the time the Southern States seceded, they had every right to secede.
I'm not from the South, but I'm an American and I know a whitewash when I see one.


Hints, reasons alluded to, changing the subject (from secession to slavery). The anachronistic landscape of the Progressive mind is terra incognita, yes?

You are so busy shrieking about "progressives" that you fail miserably to realize that the south only seceded in the first place because they were terrified of losing their slaves. Not only that, but back during the War of 1812 the same states which tried to secede from the US in the Civil War were outraged that some radicals in New England were talking of secession. Secession wasn't allowed then, and it wasn't allowed during the Civil War.

What was that saying about opinions again? Your "opinion that the south had every right to secede" means nothing in comparison to the law of the United States.

 

[ludin]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Human trafficking has no bearing on Confederate monuments. Why do you think it does?

They said the momuments represent slavery and everything else.
Which of course is not entirely true.

I look more at it from a historical military view.

That however doesn't mean that slavery has gone away.
Slavery exists still as I said in my original post.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Sure there is, if these monuments are coming down because they were slave owners, so was Washington, go ahead and tell me, but that's different, yada yada!

Yes, it was. Washington didn't fight for slavery. Lee fought to preserve it. Big difference there.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Down goes General Lee

An both was rebels in arms toward their current governments.

The US government of 1860 and the British Imperial government of 1775 were such different animals it's not even funny. Trying to equate the two is dishonest at best.

 

[katzgar]

Re: Down goes General Lee

They said the momuments represent slavery and everything else.
Which of course is not entirely true.

I look more at it from a historical military view.

That however doesn't mean that slavery has gone away.
Slavery exists still as I said in my original post.

if you want to look at as historical fine then the lee monument does not belong in NOLA, move it back east. to my knowledge lee never stepped a foot in Louisiana. context is important to understanding history and a lee monument in a circle in NOLA is not context

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Yes, it was. Washington didn't fight for slavery. Lee fought to preserve it. Big difference there.

Or course he did fight for it, or against it. He owned slaves.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Or course he did fight for it, or against it. He owned slaves.

But Washington wasn't fighting for slavery. The British hadn't banned slavery in their colonies--- wouldn't do so until years later. The American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery. The Civil War, on the other hand, had everything to do with it.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

But Washington wasn't fighting for slavery. The British hadn't banned slavery in their colonies--- wouldn't do so until years later. The American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery. The Civil War, on the other hand, had everything to do with it.

So what he was a slave owner, down with his monument!

 

[trouble13]

Re: Down goes General Lee

the difference for the south losing is 4 million people gained their freedom. Bringing up atrocities by the north are usually just a lame attempt by southerners to try and create a scenario were the north was as bad as the south and that is crap.

So your argument is that the north should be celebrated because they were less bad than the south.

I cant join you in that sentiment but to each their own. I perfer having a viewpoint that is critical of both sides that acknowledges both the merits and flaws in each of their positions.

Pardon the pun but the civil war was not a black and white issue with clearly divided lines between right and wrong. It was a complex dispute that involved human rights and economies and pronciples of governance.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[katzgar]

Re: Down goes General Lee

So your argument is that the north should be celebrated because they were less bad than the south.

I cant join you in that sentiment but to each their own. I perfer having a viewpoint that is critical of both sides that acknowledges both the merits and flaws in each of their positions.

Pardon the pun but the civil war was not a black and white issue with clearly divided lines between right and wrong. It was a complex dispute that involved human rights and economies and pronciples of governance.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

you are being manipulative, nothing more.

 

[katzgar]

Re: Down goes General Lee

So what he was a slave owner, down with his monument!

you are desperate to bring the north down to the south level...revisionist.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Down goes General Lee

So what he was a slave owner, down with his monument!

There's a difference between being a slave holder and fighting for slavery. I'm not suprised you don't grasp it.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

There's a difference between being a slave holder and fighting for slavery. I'm not suprised you don't grasp it.

I'm not surprised you cant see the blatant hypocrisy of the double standard at play!

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Down goes General Lee

katzgar = the difference for the south losing is 4 million people gained their freedom. Bringing up atrocities by the north are usually just a lame attempt by southerners to try and create a scenario were the north was as bad as the south and that is crap.
trouble13 = So your argument is that the north should be celebrated because they were less bad than the south. I cant join you in that sentiment but to each their own. I perfer having a viewpoint that is critical of both sides that acknowledges both the merits and flaws in each of their positions. Pardon the pun but the civil war was not a black and white issue with clearly divided lines between right and wrong. It was a complex dispute that involved human rights and economies and pronciples of governance.

-----

The Civil War was, in one important way, a victory for freedom and the beginning of due process and equal access. You are both right in the main of it, but if the South would not willingly give up human bondage, then it has no reason to cry that it was forced to submit.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

you are desperate to bring the north down to the south level...revisionist.

Just stating a fact, not my fault if you don't like hearing it.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Just stating a fact, not my fault if you don't like hearing it.

If the argument is the North was as bad as the South, then that argument is wrong.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Down goes General Lee

I'm not surprised you cant see the blatant hypocrisy of the double standard at play!

Many of the founders who owned slaves acknowledged that slavery was bad. That's why they ensured it would never be a permeanant part of the US.

On the other hand, the Confederates went to war with the express purpose of ensuring slavery would remain forever.

That's not a double standard; that's acknowledging reality.

 

[katzgar]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Just stating a fact, not my fault if you don't like hearing it.

I like real facts not pretend facts.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

If the argument is the North was as bad as the South, then that argument is wrong.

Stating a fact is not an argument. The previous sentence is also a fact.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Down goes General Lee

you are being manipulative, nothing more.

I dont even know what thats suppose to mean. I thought we were having a discussion involving two different viewpoints.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

Many of the founders who owned slaves acknowledged that slavery was bad. That's why they ensured it would never be a permeanant part of the US.

On the other hand, the Confederates went to war with the express purpose of ensuring slavery would remain forever.

That's not a double standard; that's acknowledging reality.

So because they had a guilty conscious, there monuments are cool?

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Down goes General Lee

I like real facts not pretend facts.

So Washington being a slave owner is not a fact? Read a history book, when you get the time.