Stone Mountain –Confederate sculpture – Remove it-Yes-No?

[JANFU]

That this poll has an error defect far less than all the polls during the long election process.
How many people do you suggest they survey in order for you to consider it legit, 40,000?

Prove it.

 

[Paperview]

So you didn't have a point? Or are you just unable to articulate it?

WTF?

I explained it fully. Your inability to grasp it seems to be an issue you'll have to work out.

Unless you think property - with no representation or citizenship - should be counted as full apportionment to supply more congress members.

Maybe you think letting your dog or cat or horse be counted in the census as a full human being is way totes.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Since many of our founding fathers were slave holders...should we remove them and their monuments from history?

No because back then it was admirable to own slaves. Men were superior to women. Oh and let's not forget that landowners such as Washington were superior to even average men who did not own property and could not vote. They were the true master race and it was understood and acceptable then.

 

[Bodi]

Yep. Remove everything. Washington, Jefferson, Madison. Guys did literally NOTHING good either. Slave holding bastards. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, etc... throw that **** out... it was written by slaveholders for ****s sake!!!

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I vote to destroy all monuments. We shall not have any false idols. I say the monuments should be of perfect people who never done any wrong. Ok the perfect politically correct of the left can have monuments.

 

[Bodi]

I think a better argument is "since the founders were traitors too..."

Not to America they weren't...

 

[Fletch]

WTF?

I explained it fully. Your inability to grasp it seems to be an issue you'll have to work out.

Unless you think property - with no representation or citizenship - should be counted as full apportionment to supply more congress members.

Maybe you think letting your dog or cat or horse be counted in the census as a full human being is way totes.

Apparently you just unearthed those facts. They may actually go over that stuff in high school history. I just wondered if you had a point to go with it or were just flexing your new found learnin for all to see.

 

[The Resister]

Stone Mountain –Confederate sculpture – Remove it-Yes-No?
Remove it - Yes -Why

Remove it- No -Why

Markers prominently posted explaining the history of this and the Civil War -Yes

Markers prominently posted explaining the history of this and the Civil War - No

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






https://www.amren.com/news/2017/08/candidate-governor-calls-removal-stone-mountain-carving/

OMG. You will keep getting the same answer. Don't screw with our history.

I only live 15 miles from Stone Mountain. IF a fight happens to protect the carving, I'll be there. It's time the left got beyond this.

 

[JANFU]

OMG. You will keep getting the same answer. Don't screw with our history.

I only live 15 miles from Stone Mountain. IF a fight happens to protect the carving, I'll be there. It's time the left got beyond this.

Pls check my comments

 

[Paperview]

Apparently you just unearthed those facts. They may actually go over that stuff in high school history. I just wondered if you had a point to go with it or were just flexing your new found learnin for all to see.

Just stop. I've made my living in the field of history for three decades. I eat, drink live and breath it every day, with an emphasis on the Rev and Civil War.

I didn't just "unearth" these facts. The notion you thought the South was somehow noble and cared about the humanity of people they enslaved because they wanted to apportion all of their slave property -- and the north resisted using census count figures to people who had no representation and weren't even citizens -- is just whack on stilts.

 

[Fletch]

Just stop. I've made my living in the field of history for three decades. I eat, drink live and breath it every day, with an emphasis on the Rev and Civil War.

I didn't just "unearth" these facts. The notion you thought the South was somehow noble and cared about the humanity of people they enslaved because they wanted to apportion all of their slave property -- and the north resisted using census count figures to people who had no representation and weren't even citizens -- is just whack on stilts.

I never said that or even hinted at it. You just allowed your anger to overwhelm your reading comprehension skills. A good idea for you angry leftists is to take a deep breath, calm down, then type.

 

[Paperview]

I never said that or even hinted at it. You just allowed your anger to overwhelm your reading comprehension skills. A good idea for you angry leftists is to take a deep breath, calm down, then type.

Why don't you Fletchsplain this wondrous bit:

Originally Posted by Fletch
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but the slave states wanted to count theirs slaves as a whole. It was the northern states that wanted them to count less."

in response to this:

Originally Posted by Paperview
Historical tidbit: Every single president until 1850 - save two, the Adams' - owned slaves.

That 3/5ths clause in the Constitution gave them a superior advantage."

What was the point? They should have counted slaves as whole while that nasty North thought property should not be counted?

 

[Fletch]

Why don't you Fletchsplain this wondrous bit:

Originally Posted by Fletch
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but the slave states wanted to count theirs slaves as a whole. It was the northern states that wanted them to count less."

in response to this:

Originally Posted by Paperview
Historical tidbit: Every single president until 1850 - save two, the Adams' - owned slaves.

That 3/5ths clause in the Constitution gave them a superior advantage."

What was the point? They should have counted slaves as whole while that nasty North thought property should not be counted?

Let me show you how dishonest you are

I said: the slave states wanted to count theirs slaves as a whole. It was the northern states that wanted them to count less


You claimed I said: "The notion you thought the South was somehow noble and cared about the humanity of people they enslaved because they wanted to apportion all of their slave property -- and the north resisted using census count figures to people who had no representation and weren't even citizens -- is just whack on stilts."

Do you see the difference? I made a statement of fact and you read your own hateful imagery into it. Not sure why it is you liberals cant discuss anything honestly, but you cant. why is that?

 

[slick]

Just stop. I've made my living in the field of history for three decades. I eat, drink live and breath it every day, with an emphasis on the Rev and Civil War.

I didn't just "unearth" these facts. The notion you thought the South was somehow noble and cared about the humanity of people they enslaved because they wanted to apportion all of their slave property -- and the north resisted using census count figures to people who had no representation and weren't even citizens -- is just whack on stilts.

Not all who claim they are historians are biased. But some are biased in favor of getting at absolute accuracy.
Others show bias simply because their view doesn't correspond with responsible views of others.

 

[slick]

Prove it.

Prove what, that you need anywhere between 20 & 40 thousand participants in a poll for
you to consider it valid? funny stuff, hang in there.

 

[The Resister]

Pls check my comments

In another thread, someone had an article about this topic as it relates to statues and saying blacks did not have statues in the U.S. - how unfair it all is, etc., etc. Rather than reinvent the wheel on this thread, this was my response to the whole thing:

Statues went up in probably most, if not all states, honoring black people during times of racial strife. The most notable was Martin Luther King, Jr. His FBI files were so damning that a judge ordered them sealed for 50 years. There were other monuments and statues erected honoring blacks. There were even stamps commissioned by the Post Office to honor blacks.

During these times of racial discord, we have witnessed the removal of white names on street and road signs; schools and government buildings are renamed to honor black people. The government is even taking the faces of white people off the currency. They removed the Confederate flags as that was controversial and now, rather than move forward, another fight was started for what, on the surface, appears to be a slam dunk for the left. We'll get rid of all the symbols of the Confederacy. That was a freaking lie:

Just a couple of days ago, in Maryland, they took down the statue of Roger Taney. Taney was the fifth U.S. Supreme Court Justice to serve on the bench. It sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the Confederacy because Taney died in 1864. So, why him?

In 1857 the United States Supreme Court ruled that blacks could not become citizens. Taney delivered the majority opinion. According to Wikipedia:

"Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. Relying upon statements made by Charles Pinckney, who had claimed authorship of the Privileges and Immunities Clause during the debates over the Missouri Compromise,[25] Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Taney did not legislate from the bench. He interpreted the law according to the facts and the law at that time. There is no evidence that has ever been entered that Taney was ever a racist. The real deal is that everything from America's past must be destroyed in order for the black leadership to be happy.

Now, once they have won the current battles, they will have to wage a war against the American flag. It was flying over the White House when the Dred Scott decision was handed down. The liberals, who finance and promote the war were the same people responsible for waging wars against the family, promoting gay rights, taking down nativity scenes, getting rid of the Ten Commandments at our courthouses, and pushing affirmative action / racial quotas / preferential hiring schemes / reverse discrimination.

Today, the change is all but complete. When the liberals, blacks, antifa, etc. factions have prevailed in their current wars then go for the flag, the last stop will be to remove the last symbol they find repulsive: the white people. The war is a subtle form of genocide against white people, but a war nonetheless.

 

[Paperview]

Let me show you how dishonest you are

I said: the slave states wanted to count theirs slaves as a whole. It was the northern states that wanted them to count less


You claimed I said: "The notion you thought the South was somehow noble and cared about the humanity of people they enslaved because they wanted to apportion all of their slave property -- and the north resisted using census count figures to people who had no representation and weren't even citizens -- is just whack on stilts."

Do you see the difference? I made a statement of fact and you read your own hateful imagery into it. Not sure why it is you liberals cant discuss anything honestly, but you cant. why is that?

I asked you what was the point? You can't seem to address that.

For those new to the thread, Fletch replied earlier: "and the point is?"
to this post:

Originally Posted by Paperview

The 3/5th clause was primarily about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a dirty compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.
The deal was done, then the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian - which was the most populous state.

And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."


It seems totally lost on him.

Pointing out the South wanted to count the slaves as more than 3/5ths and the North didn't want to count them at all is a long, tired, worn out Lost Cause talking point. There is nothing to infer from this - other than Southern slaveholders wanted even MORE representation in Congress for people ...er, property

who had no representation in Congress, and were viewed as nothing more than farm animals.

 

[Paperview]

..... There is no evidence that has ever been entered that Taney was ever a racist...

Oh my gawd.

Taney wrote a torturous decision that said no black person FREE OR SLAVE was a citizen of this country - and that ALL blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. "

Not a single black person, no matter who he was -- had any rights whatsoever. But nah, he wasn't a racist.

 

[Fletch]

I asked you what was the point? You can't seem to address that.

For those new to the thread, Fletch replied earlier: "and the point is?"
to this post:

Originally Posted by Paperview

The 3/5th clause was primarily about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a dirty compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.
The deal was done, then the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian - which was the most populous state.

And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."


It seems totally lost on him.

Pointing out the South wanted to count the slaves as more than 3/5ths and the North didn't want to count them at all is a long, tired, worn out Lost Cause talking point. There is nothing to infer from this - other than Southern slaveholders wanted even MORE representation in Congress for people ...er, property

who had no representation in Congress, and were viewed as nothing more than farm animals.

You are now just ranting and raving. I knew all this before you posted it. Again, do you have a point here ?

 

[Paperview]

You are now just ranting and raving. I knew all this before you posted it. Again, do you have a point here ?

You see? The poster is all but admitting he is a troll with nothing valuable to contribute.

What is clear to all is the breadth of your historical knowledge could fit inside a mini-sized Dixie cup.

 

[Parrish]

Oh my gawd.

Taney wrote a torturous decision that said no black person FREE OR SLAVE was a citizen of this country - and that ALL blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. "

Not a single black person, no matter who he was -- had any rights whatsoever. But nah, he wasn't a racist.

Don't waste your time, Paperview. Those folks are just trying to defend the indefensible while playing coy.

What would their response be if Obama was added to Stone Mountain, Rushmore or in front of their local courthouse? Care to guess?

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I vote people should quit being offended over insignifigant things.

 

[slick]

I asked you what was the point? You can't seem to address that.

For those new to the thread, Fletch replied earlier: "and the point is?"
to this post:

Originally Posted by Paperview

The 3/5th clause was primarily about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a dirty compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.
The deal was done, then the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian - which was the most populous state.

And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."


It seems totally lost on him.

Pointing out the South wanted to count the slaves as more than 3/5ths and the North didn't want to count them at all is a long, tired, worn out Lost Cause talking point. There is nothing to infer from this - other than Southern slaveholders wanted even MORE representation in Congress for people ...er, property

who had no representation in Congress, and were viewed as nothing more than farm animals.

'Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian - which was the most populous state.' Let's see:

Virginia was not the most populous state in all the 1st 9 presidential elections. 'NY was #1 early on in Monroe's 1st term

 

[The Resister]

Oh my gawd.

Taney wrote a torturous decision that said no black person FREE OR SLAVE was a citizen of this country - and that ALL blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. "

Not a single black person, no matter who he was -- had any rights whatsoever. But nah, he wasn't a racist.

Classic dishonesty. Taney didn't write the laws. His job was to interpret the statutes. Virtually every state had legislation wherein one had to be white and Christian in order to hold public office, vote, and / or be a state citizen. The United States Code only allowed whites to be citizens. The Preamble to the Constitution only allowed for the posterity of the founding fathers to be citizens... not to mention all the other pages Taney quoted that you have never read.

Taney was not a legislator nor a political hack. He interpreted the law as it was on the books. Without overstepping his authority as the current courts do, Taney interpreted the law in accordance with the intent AND standing precedents. It's too bad most people won't read. NO, you have offered NO PROOF that Taney was a racist.

 

[What if...?]

Not to America they weren't...

But they were English citizens when they did it.