• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

New congressional resolution introduced to remove Lee statue from Antietam

apdst said:
Truth hurts too bad for ya? :lamo
Click to expand...

There has been very little truth in your posts.

Other posters in this thread, have done a noble job of posting actual facts.
 
apdst said:
In the battlefield parks, history is documented through markers and statues on the battlefield. It's literally, an outdoor museum.

Next, you'll want to have all the photographs of Confederate generals removed from the vistor's centers at the NBP's.
Click to expand...
Those markers aren't even a cliff notes version of history. Their intent to glorify the subject , not record history. We could do better educating the public with a comic book. I don't much care if Lee's statute stays or goes, but it's artwork celebrating the man, not history. It the statute sits on public land, then the public vis a vis its governmental representatives, have every right to move it, sell it, or light it up with strobe lights.
 
Cramer said:
There has been very little truth in your posts.

Other posters in this thread, have done a noble job of posting actual facts.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. One thing's certain, you aren't one of the posters that have posted any facts. :lamo
 
apdst said:
Leftists prove that isn't necessarily so.
Click to expand...

It would not be fair to have a contest as to which ideology bases it's opinions on facts,truth and empirical evidence.

I mean we all know Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, more guns equate to less gun violence, lowering taxes, actually raises tax revenue, and if we deregulate industry, they will always do what is best overall, even it that means their profits may suffer. Right?
 
Cramer said:
It would not be fair to have a contest as to which ideology bases it's opinions on facts,truth and empirical evidence.

I mean we all know Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, more guns equate to less gun violence, lowering taxes, actually raises tax revenue, and if we deregulate industry, they will always do what is best overall, even it that means their profits may suffer. Right?
Click to expand...

You're right, because the Leftists would lose...bad.

The Left's ignorance of history is astounding.
 
Maryland is the rat home of Ocean City, Cambridge, and Baltimore threee of the most violent cities in the country. Baltimore's poverty rate sits t almost 25%...nearly a quarter of the cities residents are in poverty. The schools in their major cities consistently fail.

And these stupid ****ing twats content themselves with fabricating racial hatred to rally the weak minded leftist ****s in the country.

Not shocked...at all. And the only truly sad thing is it will work. Because thats how ****ing impotent and stupid the American left has become.
 
SoCal said:
Thanks for the correction, you prompted a reassessment. After more consideration, I believe they should all be removed from all public spaces. Let the south's pride in their forefathers be expressed by statutes on only public battlefields. For example...

"Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park preserves and interprets the Battle of Cedar Creek, a decisive October 19, 1864 Union victory...

...Although there are over 3,700 acres within the park's authorized boundary, over half of this is still privately owned. Therefore, much of the battlefield is not accessible to the public..."
Click to expand...

Even private property?
 
apdst said:
Even private property?
Click to expand...

No, that was another error. This is America, so southerners who want to honor their slaver forefathers, on their own property, is their right. It's not illegal to revere southerners who worked so hard to divide our nation. You must be proud that Trump continues the fight...
 
TheParser said:
Thank you for your informative comments.

General Lee was an officer and a gentleman.


If I am not mistaken, His Excellency, President Abraham Lincoln, offered General Lee the command of the army of the United States of America. But General Lee declined.


At that time, many people assumed that a state had the right to leave the Union, since the matter is not mentioned in the Constitution.


People may use any word they wish to describe General Lee (that is their business), but he remains today a model of a gentleman. I wish more American boys and men were as cultured as he. We would certainly have a lot fewer problems.




Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

Lincoln, Gen. Winfield Scott retired, the general staff and field commanders were more interested in precluding CSA getting Lee simply because Lee was wanted by his bud Jefferson Davis and because Lee was from a prominent Southern family that drew from "Light Horse" Harry Lee in the war of Independence.

Everyone knew Lee from the Mexican American War where Lee the engineer cleared roads ahead of Scott's army and scouted to include some minor engagements. Grant the Infantry officer made his name in Mexico taking command of cavalry units whose colonels had been shot or lost in the melee. When Grant became general in chief for Lincoln he and his soulmate Sherman met on the road in Cincinnati, at the palacial Burnet House where Grant told Sherman to go get Gen. Johnston and Atlanta while Grant took out Lee.

Grant knew Lee and he knew Lee was average as an Army officer and that Lee was a humorless statue who when outflanked became enraged and attacked the center. True to form Lee at Gettysburg couldn't turn Meade's flanks and went to his default fault, the Union center on an open field at Cemetery Ridge where Gen. Hancock of New York commanded 8000 Infantry and a myriad of new cannon with new ordinance that obliterated three of Lee's divisions between breakfast and lunch. Lee galloped Traveler to Picket, "General, take your division and establish a defensive position on that ridge behind us." Pickett could only weep, "Sir, I have no division."

Lee's strong point to Lincoln and Gen. Scott was not as a some kind of gentleman or nobleman but as an aggressive commander who when the had the numbers prevailed consistently. With Lee commanding the Army of the Potomac it's likely the war would have ended much much sooner than it did with Lee in command of the Army of Northern Virginia and its inferior numbers, supplies, resources. Many agree Longstreet would have commanded had Lee gone with the Union which damps down enthusiasts of a quicker Union victory under Lee. Longstreet after all was right at Gettysburg on each decision where Lee was wrong and wrong grotesquely while overruling him. Pickett and Longstreet agreed at Gettysburg while Lee overruled 'em both on everything. Until Gettysburg Lee wanted a Caesar style battle of annihilation against the Army of the Potomac which he could never achieve while losing troops he could never replace in adequate numbers until the numbers ran out. Lee's casualty rate for the war exceeded Grant's.

The final note here and as it was without Lee, Lincoln and Gen. Scott knew they were looking at lesser commanders starting with MacClellan. MacClellan and Halleck translated Napoleon for West Point and Union war officers but in the field neither of 'em could hold Napoleon's horse. Lee and Grant relied heavily on Napoleon's flanking maneuver but of the two only Grant could execute it properly and successfully. Lincoln made Halleck "The Brain" Quartermaster which kept the supplies flowing until game over.
 
Tangmo said:
Lincoln, Gen. Winfield Scott retired, the general staff and field commanders were more interested in precluding CSA getting Lee simply because Lee was wanted by his bud Jefferson Davis and because Lee was from a prominent Southern family that drew from "Light Horse" Harry Lee in the war of Independence.

Everyone knew Lee from the Mexican American War where Lee the engineer cleared roads ahead of Scott's army and scouted to include some minor engagements. Grant the Infantry officer made his name in Mexico taking command of cavalry units whose colonels had been shot or lost in the melee. When Grant became general in chief for Lincoln he and his soulmate Sherman met on the road in Cincinnati, at the palacial Burnet House where Grant told Sherman to go get Gen. Johnston and Atlanta while Grant took out Lee.

Grant knew Lee and he knew Lee was average as an Army officer and that Lee was a humorless statue who when outflanked became enraged and attacked the center. True to form Lee at Gettysburg couldn't turn Meade's flanks and went to his default fault, the Union center on an open field at Cemetery Ridge where Gen. Hancock of New York commanded 8000 Infantry and a myriad of new cannon with new ordinance that obliterated three of Lee's divisions between breakfast and lunch. Lee galloped Traveler to Picket, "General, take your division and establish a defensive position on that ridge behind us." Pickett could only weep, "Sir, I have no division."

Lee's strong point to Lincoln and Gen. Scott was not as a some kind of gentleman or nobleman but as an aggressive commander who when the had the numbers prevailed consistently. With Lee commanding the Army of the Potomac it's likely the war would have ended much much sooner than it did with Lee in command of the Army of Northern Virginia and its inferior numbers, supplies, resources. Many agree Longstreet would have commanded had Lee gone with the Union which damps down enthusiasts of a quicker Union victory under Lee. Longstreet after all was right at Gettysburg on each decision where Lee was wrong and wrong grotesquely while overruling him. Pickett and Longstreet agreed at Gettysburg while Lee overruled 'em both on everything. Until Gettysburg Lee wanted a Caesar style battle of annihilation against the Army of the Potomac which he could never achieve while losing troops he could never replace in adequate numbers until the numbers ran out. Lee's casualty rate for the war exceeded Grant's.

The final note here and as it was without Lee, Lincoln and Gen. Scott knew they were looking at lesser commanders starting with MacClellan. MacClellan and Halleck translated Napoleon for West Point and Union war officers but in the field neither of 'em could hold Napoleon's horse. Lee and Grant relied heavily on Napoleon's flanking maneuver but of the two only Grant could execute it properly and successfully. Lincoln made Halleck "The Brain" Quartermaster which kept the supplies flowing until game over.
Click to expand...






Oh, my!

You certainly are a Civil War buff. I bet you enjoy those Civil War discussion panels on C-Span, as do I.

I think that your informative and heartfelt post proves that people can talk about battles without getting into unpleasant arguments about slavery per se.

I know NOthing about the Civil War, except that I have read that poor General Halleck was held in contempt by almost all the generals whom he was supposedly superior to.

The most poignant sentence in your great post involves your feeling that the Civil War could have ended earlier if the federal forces had had better leadership.



Thanks once again. Your enthusiasm for this subject shines through very clearly. Congratulations on your obvious scholarship.




Have a nice day!
 
SoCal said:
No, that was another error. This is America, so southerners who want to honor their slaver forefathers, on their own property, is their right. It's not illegal to revere southerners who worked so hard to divide our nation. You must be proud that Trump continues the fight...
Click to expand...

A grocery store is a public place.
 
TheParser said:
Thank you for your opinion.

I prefer to believe those books that describe the general as a true Southern gentleman.

I wish that our country had more men like him today instead of the many uncultured individuals that we meet at school, at work, and in public.
Click to expand...
At least you admit your bias.
 
CommunityStanda said:
What's missing?
Click to expand...

Lot's of stuff. The daily life of the soldiers, for example. Weapons, tactics and their effects.

Books by McPherson, Catton and Foote touch on very general information.

I take issue with Foote because he takes a certain license with the facts. All those officers employ their own interpretations of the facts.

McPherson published Battle Cry of Freedom in 1988. Catton died in '78. Catton had a very pro-union slant to his writing. He heavily promoted the the "ragged rebel" myth.

There's been a lot of research done since those books were written. Many minute details have been uncovered that changed the bigger picture.

A good example is the Fred Adolphus' Tate jacket project.

The Confederate Soldier of Fort Mahone

The Confederate soldiers in the article are clearly wearing new, or almost new uniforms and all but two have shoes that are in good condition. One of the two apparently had shoes, because he's still wearing one sock.

Adophus' research doesn't destroy the ragged rebel myth, but it definitely puts a hell of a big dent in it.
 
apdst said:
This whole Confederate statue thing is about revenge and nothing else.
Click to expand...

You are wrong in just about every post you make. Taking down most of these monuments actually correct history. Lee disnt want statues erected of him but that is not the real reason for removing these statues. You see, the phrase “the victors write the history” is a convenient half truth. In reality, the confederates were able to write their own history. They wrote the “lost cause” myth which covered up the nasty cause of the confederacy. I know lots of folks are going to try to obfuscate with red herrings but it only shows their ignorance of or outright approval of the confederacy. The lost cause myth has infected the imaginations of many southerners even today and helped the narrative of what is quite the most vile and oppressive film ever made in America, birth of a nation. The myth posits that the civil war was a war of northern aggression, it had nothing or little to do with slavery, and it was about states rights. Ever wonder why many southerners ignorantly fly the confederate battle flag? The lost cause myth is why.

Now for the second reason to remove these statues, most of these statues were put up to scare African Americans from fighting for civil rights several decades after the civil war ended. They were put up to “show those uppity blacks their place”
 
bomberfox said:
You are wrong in just about every post you make. Taking down most of these monuments actually correct history. Lee disnt want statues erected of him but that is not the real reason for removing these statues. You see, the phrase “the victors write the history” is a convenient half truth. In reality, the confederates were able to write their own history. They wrote the “lost cause” myth which covered up the nasty cause of the confederacy. I know lots of folks are going to try to obfuscate with red herrings but it only shows their ignorance of or outright approval of the confederacy. The lost cause myth has infected the imaginations of many southerners even today and helped the narrative of what is quite the most vile and oppressive film ever made in America, birth of a nation. The myth posits that the civil war was a war of northern aggression, it had nothing or little to do with slavery, and it was about states rights. Ever wonder why many southerners ignorantly fly the confederate battle flag? The lost cause myth is why.

Now for the second reason to remove these statues, most of these statues were put up to scare African Americans from fighting for civil rights several decades after the civil war ended. They were put up to “show those uppity blacks their place”
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than a ploy for the Left wing to show everyone who's in control.
 
jimbo said:
The birther had nothing to so with race. The question was whether not he was eligible to be President.
Click to expand...

It had everything to do with the inability of those tards to believe we could have minority representation in the presidency.
 
It's funny, too, cuz I don't remember Republicans ever questioning Ted Cruz's eligibility to be President, even though he literally isn't eligible because he wasn't born in the US. But, oh, he's white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom