Enough is Enough
There are many topics that we can discuss but the one that is at the center of news lately is removal of all Confederate monuments. Anyone who finds Robert E. Lee admirable is portrayed as a delusional racist who supports the detestable institution of slavery.
Here are some facts.
Robert E. Lee was against slavery. If the Civil War was about slavery, he would have fought for the Union. U.S. Grant was for slavery, and if the Civil War was about slavery he would have fought for the Confederate. Lee did not own slaves, Grant did.
Lincoln would have allowed slavery if it meant preserving the Union.
There is a battle line that is drawn that the left is afraid to cross. There are some who want to remove all monuments of political figures that were slave owners. The two most prominent men are Jefferson and Washington.
It is easy to denounce the KKK, but are you going to denounce Washington? Are we to remove him from Mount Rushmore? Are we to remove him from quarters? Schools that are named after him, roads, towns, and even a state, are they to be changed?
Attack George Washington and you will get a backlash from patriotic Americans that no group with their left agenda will ever recover from. He was a slave owner!!!! Where is your outrage at him that you are showing to Confederate monuments and men of the Confederacy?
U.S. Grant had it right when he gave lenient terms of surrender at the end of the war. There were people wanting Lee hung as a war criminal and for treason. Grant would not allow this and made sure that attempt at this would be squashed.
The price of slavery has been paid in full by whites. Go to the cemetery at Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and countless other battlefields and you will see where their payments have been made. The last payment is found at Oak Ridge Cemetery
Instead of finding reason to keep dividing our country, let us bury the past and move forward for a stronger, better America. And lastly, I leave you with this.
GOD bless America
Lee also opposed pro- confederate monuments.
it would be wiser “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife.”
It does seem like kind of a foolish thing to expend so much energy on, one way or the other.
I'm not sure it's as much a right and left thing as our elites wanting the population divided. And people existing in echo chambers.
1)U.S. Grant was given a slave to settle a debt. He then freed him.
2) Lee did not technically own any slaves. The estate( now Arlington National Cemetery) wasn't owned by Lee, it was his wife's, inherited from her father.
Her father's will called for all his slaves to be freed upon his death, but Lee went to court arguing freeing them immediately would be an undue hardship, asking for five years to transition.
3) Whatever Lee's feelings about slavery were, he lead an armed insurgency that if successful would have kept blacks enslaved.
4) I don't purport to speak for others, but my issue with Confederate statues isn't that they may or may not been slave owners. That's irrelevant ,to me.
I'm against honoring them because 1) they were traitors who fought for an evil purpose, and 2) they have become magnets for people who espouse decidedly Unamerican viewpoints.
Just as England doesn't honor George Washington, or Germany doesn't honor Hitler, there is no reason to honor people who committed treason.
Attempting to compare people who fought to free us from tyranny to those who fought to keep a large portion of the population enslaved is not only ludicrous, but it lessens the person who makes such a claim.
Few Confederate leaders or soldiers were evil, but what they fought for was.
When it comes to a fight between good and evil, I chose to be on the side of good.
Last week in Virginia you had one side that wants to kill blacks and minorities, and go back to an era that never existed, and on the other were those who opposed them.
It doesn't get much clearer.
"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make them free."
I'd caution anyone reading and posting to check all your 'facts' and provide sources.
Quote: odiousgambitI will not participate in this thread other than to say posters are accusing each other of made-up facts, then posting made-up facts of their own.
I'd caution anyone reading and posting to check all your 'facts' and provide sources.
Please point out one made up fact in my response. Please.
My Facts come from Grants autobiography where he discusses his slave problem. Deeply in debt himself, he is given a slave by someone who owes him money.
His father in law suggests they sell the slave to get out of debt, but at a time when they still had debtors prisons, he frees the man.
Lee and slaves from Wiki.
In 1857, his father-in-law George Washington Parke Custis died, creating a serious crisis when Lee took on the burden of executing the will. Custis's will encompassed vast landholdings and hundreds of slaves balanced against massive debts, and required Custis's former slaves "to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."[51] The estate was in disarray, and the plantations had been poorly managed and were losing money.
Lee tried to hire an overseer to handle the plantation in his absence, writing to his cousin, "I wish to get an energetic honest farmer, who while he will be considerate & kind to the negroes, will be firm & make them do their duty."[52] But Lee failed to find a man for the job, and had to take a two-year leave of absence from the army in order to run the plantation himself. He found the experience frustrating, since many of the slaves had been given to understand that they were to be made free as soon as Custis died, and protested angrily at the delay.[53] In May 1858, Lee wrote to his son Rooney, "I have had some trouble with some of the people. Reuben, Parks & Edward, in the beginning of the previous week, rebelled against my authority—refused to obey my orders, & said they were as free as I was, etc., etc.—I succeeded in capturing them & lodging them in jail. They resisted till overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them."[52] Less than two months after they were sent to the Alexandria jail, Lee decided to remove these three men and three female house slaves from Arlington, and sent them under lock and key to the slave-trader William Overton Winston in Richmond, who was instructed to keep them in jail until he could find "good & responsible" slaveholders to work them until the end of the five-year period.[52]
The Norris case
In 1859, three of the Arlington slaves—Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin of theirs—fled for the North, but were captured a few miles from the Pennsylvania border and forced to return to Arlington. On June 24, 1859, the anti-slavery newspaper New York Daily Tribune published two anonymous letters (dated June 19, 1859[54] and June 21, 1859[55]), each claiming to have heard that Lee had the Norrises whipped, and each going so far as to claim that the overseer refused to whip the woman but that Lee took the whip and flogged her personally. Lee privately wrote to his son Custis that "The N. Y. Tribune has attacked me for my treatment of your grandfather's slaves, but I shall not reply. He has left me an unpleasant legacy."[56]
Wesley Norris himself spoke out about the incident after the war, in an 1866 interview printed in an abolitionist newspaper, the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Norris stated that after they had been captured, and forced to return to Arlington, Lee told them that "he would teach us a lesson we would not soon forget." According to Norris, Lee then had the three of them firmly tied to posts by the overseer, and ordered them whipped with fifty lashes for the men and twenty for Mary Norris. Norris claimed that Lee encouraged the whipping, and that when the overseer refused to do it, called in the county constable to do it instead. Unlike the anonymous letter writers, he does not state that Lee himself whipped any of the slaves. According to Norris, Lee "frequently enjoined [Constable] 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
Quote: NeutrinoAlt-left is out of control
Fact: The term Alt-left was made by the Alt-Right.
Quote: pbs
Who coined the term “alt-left?”
According to the Washington Post, the term “alt-left” was first used on conspiracy theory-pushing websites like WorldNetDaily. As early as August 2016, that site published an op-ed entitled “Let’s look at the alt left” that argued that the Democratic party was as racist as the right, and that it should be considered extreme because it welcomed into its ranks communists and socialists.
By December 2016, Fox News was also using the term “alt-left,” but in a different way, to argue that the mainstream left was out of step with the majority of Americans. As examples of the left’s radicalism, it cited that Democratic politicians had mourned the death of strongman Fidel Castro, and that the failures of Obamacare had been undercovered by the media.
As of April of this year, conservative commentator Sean Hannity had begun using the phrase in a third way — and in the same manner that Trump did on Tuesday. Hannity used “alt-left” to describe campus protests by left-leaning students, and specifically the fact that they had turned violent.
In Trump’s statements Tuesday, he characterized the “alt-left” as counter protesters who used violence, describing some who carried clubs.
I am for the statues staying. Just get rid of the people advancing white-supremacist and Nazi ideals who gravitate to these historical artifacts. Just erect one statue of Hitler instead in the middle of nowhere and let them advance their cause there.
Honor goes to the winners until further notice.
Losers get the museums, if they get anything.
I see that no one wants to address George Washington, the slave owning master. His plantation is preserved and we can get rid of this.
Jefferson had a paramour relation with at least one of his slave, resulting in a bastard child. We can tear down the Jefferson memorial.
Ford was a known anti-Semite. Don't drive a Ford. Mercedes and BMW helped the Nazi so don't drive them either. Mitsubishi help the Japs so let's not drive those cars either.
Where does all this self righteousness stop?
USA is the greatest country ever conceived by men. It is not perfect and the history shows this, but it is a work in progress and I pray that we are better tomorrow than we are today.
Quote: boymimboFact: The term Alt-left was made by the Alt-Right.
I wish you could take a step back and see how insane this sounds to normal people.
Quote: AceCrAAckersWhy stop at just the Confederate monuments? Lets get rid of all monuments that honor slave owners.
Totally miss the point
Its not about slave owners
Its about people willing to kill our patriotic soldiers to keep slavery
Its killing another human being simply keep slavery
Quote: AceCrAAckersWhy stop at just the Confederate monuments? Lets get rid of all monuments that honor slave owners.
I see that no one wants to address George Washington, the slave owning master. His plantation is preserved and we can get rid of this.
Jefferson had a paramour relation with at least one of his slave, resulting in a bastard child. We can tear down the Jefferson memorial.
Ford was a known anti-Semite. Don't drive a Ford. Mercedes and BMW helped the Nazi so don't drive them either. Mitsubishi help the Japs so let's not drive those cars either.
Where does all this self righteousness stop?
USA is the greatest country ever conceived by men. It is not perfect and the history shows this, but it is a work in progress and I pray that we are better tomorrow than we are today.
Did any of those people lead an armed rebellion against our country? Any of them command troops that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans?
Any of those people take up arms to defend slavery?
If Nazis were running Germany, I wouldn't buy a German car. Same thing if Tojo was running Japan. We fought and won a war and made peace. Do you see any statues to Rommell in this country? Want to send your children to Adolf Hitler High School?
You are defending the very people who want to change our way of life. Watch the interview with the leader of the group from Virginia who wants to burn all minorities. When asked how he would do it, he says we burned six million jews last time. Last I looked, America has burned very few Jews or even witches.
neo-Nazis and the klan don't want progress, they want to regress to a time that never really existed.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
Quote: AceCrAAckersWhy stop at just the Confederate monuments? Lets get rid of all monuments that honor slave owners.
I see that no one wants to address George Washington, the slave owning master. His plantation is preserved and we can get rid of this.
Jefferson had a paramour relation with at least one of his slave, resulting in a bastard child. We can tear down the Jefferson memorial.
Ford was a known anti-Semite. Don't drive a Ford. Mercedes and BMW helped the Nazi so don't drive them either. Mitsubishi help the Japs so let's not drive those cars either.
Where does all this self righteousness stop?
USA is the greatest country ever conceived by men. It is not perfect and the history shows this, but it is a work in progress and I pray that we are better tomorrow than we are today.
I think Bill addressed that quite explicitly. He thinks there shouldn't be monuments to the confederates because they were 1)Traitors 2) fighting for an evil cause - if not slavery per se, a separate country that would continue slavery. And if they'd won, btw, the USA you are celebrating would not exist.
This is different than saying it's because the individual men had failings or owned slaves.
While I'm not sure I agree--I lean to keeping even monuments to bad ideas in tact--that is a pretty clear distinction.
You, however, didn't explain how whites bayoneting each other in a war that wasn't about slavery means they redeemed themselves for slavery.
Seems like a weird concept to me. If I cheat on my wife, and then find another guy who cheated on his wife, and we beat the crap out of each other, we've somehow cleansed ourselves?
Quote: AceCrAAckersWhy stop at just the Confederate monuments? Lets get rid of all monuments that honor slave owners.
I see that no one wants to address George Washington, the slave owning master. His plantation is preserved and we can get rid of this.
Jefferson had a paramour relation with at least one of his slave, resulting in a bastard child. We can tear down the Jefferson memorial.
Ford was a known anti-Semite. Don't drive a Ford. Mercedes and BMW helped the Nazi so don't drive them either. Mitsubishi help the Japs so let's not drive those cars either.
Where does all this self righteousness stop?
USA is the greatest country ever conceived by men. It is not perfect and the history shows this, but it is a work in progress and I pray that we are better tomorrow than we are today.
As I just said elsewhere, it's the rightwing that goes on about winners and losers being important, and not to give everyone a trophy. So ya'll make up your mind.
Confederacy was loser.
Quote: terapinedTotally miss the point
Its not about slave owners
Its about people willing to kill our patriotic soldiers to keep slavery
Its killing another human being simply keep slavery
I got it now.
Slave owners are OK. We do not need to remove their statues or monuments.
The south succeeded from the Union because they wanted to keep slavery and the people who fought for the south wanted to kill "our patriotic soldiers" so they are all traitors.
The average Confederate soldiers fought and killed another human beings simply to keep slaves and slavery. Most of the Confederate soldiers must have owned slaves also if they are risking their life for this!?
Lincoln allowed the south to keep slavery so why did they fight and succeed?
Quote: AceCrAAckersI got it now.
Slave owners are OK. We do not need to remove their statues or monuments.
The south succeeded from the Union because they wanted to keep slavery and the people who fought for the south wanted to kill "our patriotic soldiers" so they are all traitors.
The average Confederate soldiers fought and killed another human beings simply to keep slaves and slavery. Most of the Confederate soldiers must have owned slaves also if they are risking their life for this!?
Lincoln allowed the south to keep slavery so why did they fight and succeed?
If only there were books that could explain this. If only there was a place where one could go and get such books.
So pulling them down doesn't particularly change history; it removes an INTENDED odious symbol of oppression. I looked into the original proclamations for some of them, because I thought that origin story was slanted, and it seems to be true. For me, that changed my opinion from leave them alone to, remove them from public places and put them in a museum.
For example, I'm spending some time in Biloxi lately. They have Beauvoir, which is the beautifully restored home of Jefferson Davis. Private property, maintained with entrance fees, several statues and other honoraria on site. They have every right to do that, IMO. If it was a public park, maintained with tax money, I can see the argument about removing it.
Intent does matter. This just proves that dog whistles are nothing new.
Quote: billryanIf only there were books that could explain this. If only there was a place where one could go and get such books.
There is. It is called a library.
I read US Grants memoirs and as dry reading as it was, he explained what Lee fought for and why he was against him. There was never any mention about fighting for slavery.
This is the government that Lee fought for. His own beliefs are irrelevant.
- most of the confederate soldiers (>90%) never owned a slave -they were too poor to own anything and too uneducated to have a strong opinion about the institution of slavery. They joined the confederate army to defend their homes, their families and all they knew and loved from invasion from the north. They experienced years of incredible hardship in the war and many of them died.
- - you may think the Vietnam War was an illegal and immoral act of aggression by America -but should we tear down the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC?
- confederate monuments in the South were originally established to honor fathers, brothers and sons who died in the Civil War. The people of the South suffered grievously during and after the War (and the South was impoverished for almost 100 years in the aftermath of the Civil War) but they still found the resources to honor their dead and build the memorials.
- today, Southerners view the monuments as honoring their ancestors who died in the Civil War, and as honoring the historical people who originally settled and lived in the areas that we live in today. They are about regional pride and honoring our heritage.
- the entanglement of these monuments with slavery seems wrong to me. And the demonization of people that you disagree with as racists is worse than irresponsible - it is hate mongering, it is evil. Have some human decency.
Quote: gordonm888I am a northerner who has lived in the south for over 30 years in a region (East Tennessee) that tended to side with the north (Union) during the Civil War. I have never had a shred of sympathy for slavery. This is what I observe:
- most of the confederate soldiers (>90%) never owned a slave -they were too poor to own anything and too uneducated to have a strong opinion about the institution of slavery. They joined the confederate army to defend their homes, their families and all they knew and loved from invasion from the north. They experienced years of incredible hardship in the war and many of them died.
- you may think the Vietnam War was an illegal and immoral act of aggression by America -but should we tear down the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC?
- confederate monuments in the South were originally established to honor fathers, brothers and sons who died in the Civil War. The people of the South suffered grievously during and after the War (and the South was impoverished for almost 100 years in the aftermath of the Civil War) but they still found the resources to honor their dead and build the memorials.
- today, Southerners view the monuments as honoring their ancestors who died in the Civil War, and as honoring the historical people who originally settled and lived in the areas that we live in today. They are about regional pride and honoring our heritage.
- the entanglement of these monuments with slavery seems wrong to me. And the demonization of people that you disagree with as racists is worse than irresponsible - it is hate mongering, it is evil. Have some human decency.
Re: Bolded above. This is what I had thought as well, but it seems those who raised or appropriated the money to erect them actually had a hidden agenda. I don't think you're wrong, as that's the common understanding or rationale, but was NOT the intent.
Quote: gordonm888I Southerners view the monuments as honoring their ancestors who died in the Civil War
The majority of black Southerners aren't Southerners I suppose?
I am an American.
Quote: CalderIt's a wonder these demands weren't made during the previous administration.
Most of them were, if news accounts are correct. A lot of them have been litigating or going through the removal process for years. Some are protected by law, so people are trying to get the laws changed to permit the removal. Etc....varies by state.
Quote: billryanI am neither a Northerner nor a Southerner.
I am an American.
I don't even apply that label. I'm just human. Where I was born on this planet has no bearing on anything.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI don't even apply that label. I'm just human. Where I was born on this planet has no bearing on anything.
Corny pun time. If you were born in the ocean you'd be a Merman. LOL.
As only Arnold could say it:
“Your heroes are losers. You are supporting a lost cause,” he said. “And believe me, I knew the original Nazis, because I was born in Austria in 1947, shortly after the Second World War. And growing up, I was surrounded by broken men, men who came home from a war filled with shrapnel and guilt, men who were misled into a losing ideology. And I can tell you: that these ghosts you idolize spent the rest of their lives living in shame and right now, they’re resting in hell.”
The primary expense in the post war Georgia state budget was the purchase of canes and crutches for the wounded. Was this to honor them? Or simply provide for them?
There were battles in the American civil war that were preceeded with newspaper reading and exchanges of coffee and tea, then there would be cries of "Hunt your cover, we are going to start the battle". Then men who had just shared coffee rations would try to kill each other.
Honor? When some Southerners drew themselves up into ranks and marched off the field of battlle, fire from the Federals ceased as they had great respect for those who shouldered their muskets and marched off rather than threw the muskets to the ground and ran away. Is such respect limited to the time of hostilities?
✔
@JamilSmith
All these folks worried about erasing history when the Confederate statues come down will be thrilled to learn about the existence of books.
4:53 PM - Aug 16, 2017 · California, USA
4,021
4,021 Replies
76,130
76,130 Retweets
225,239
225,239 likes
While that may have happened, I doubt it was a thriving business. The US outlawed the import of slaves long before the Civil War.
To be sure, some slaves were smuggled into the United States after 1820 from both Africa and other places in the Western Hemisphere. But the risks were high and the numbers were relatively few. In an eight-year period, from 1800 until December 31, 1807, about 100,000 Africans were forcibly brought into the country. After 1820 it is unlikely that more than 10,000 were successfully landed in the United States. It may have been far fewer than that. As the internal slave trade replaced the African trade, hundreds of thousands of African-American slaves were uprooted and moved further south and further west. The cost of ending that trade would be much higher than ending the African trade. But the moral issue was set in 1819 and 1820 when the United States finally stated, in unequivocal terms, that enslaving people was a "wrong" and those who engaged in the African trade were no better than common pirates. And, like common pirates, they deserved to be hanged.
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy
Albany Law School
By the way, the 1860 Census records indicate 32% of White Families owned slaves, so I think it would be reasonable to assume that around that same percentage of Confederate Soldiers owned slaves. Many who didn't own slaves worked in the slave trade business or as overseers on plantations.
But that should be its proper status.
Looks like the winds of change are rising.....
Quote: billryanBy the way, the 1860 Census records indicate 32% of White Families owned slaves,
You mean 32% of southern families, I assume?
Quote: gordonm888I am a northerner who has lived in the south for over 30 years in a region (East Tennessee) that tended to side with the north (Union) during the Civil War. I have never had a shred of sympathy for slavery. This is what I observe:
- most of the confederate soldiers (>90%) never owned a slave -they were too poor to own anything and too uneducated to have a strong opinion about the institution of slavery. They joined the confederate army to defend their homes, their families and all they knew and loved from invasion from the north. They experienced years of incredible hardship in the war and many of them died.
- you may think the Vietnam War was an illegal and immoral act of aggression by America -but should we tear down the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC?
- confederate monuments in the South were originally established to honor fathers, brothers and sons who died in the Civil War. The people of the South suffered grievously during and after the War (and the South was impoverished for almost 100 years in the aftermath of the Civil War) but they still found the resources to honor their dead and build the memorials.
- today, Southerners view the monuments as honoring their ancestors who died in the Civil War, and as honoring the historical people who originally settled and lived in the areas that we live in today. They are about regional pride and honoring our heritage.
- the entanglement of these monuments with slavery seems wrong to me. And the demonization of people that you disagree with as racists is worse than irresponsible - it is hate mongering, it is evil. Have some human decency.
I thought of the Vietnam/Iraq war thing as well.
A monument to the dead soldiers of the Confederacy should clearly stay in place, imo.
A monument to the architects of our unjust wars would be a terrible idea, and if someone put one up, I'd probably favor taking it back down.
W. was the president, so Obviously he's gonna have stuff dedicated to him and what have you. But a monument to him specifically for that war... nope. Same with the Vietnam presidents.
I think some Southerners see things as you describe. But, if their perspective is respected, then the perspective of blacks should also be considered. And that kind of brings that back to the quote Bill posted, about the cornerstone of the confederacy being the inferiority of the Negro race. It stirkes me as pretty reasonable to not want statues to that movement on public land. So which interpretation carries more weight?
I agree it is not only wrong, but counterproductive to smear all who favor the monuments as Nazis.
That's just how our politics is going. In my memory, it started when anybody who didn't believe that Saddam was making invisible ICBMs in the backs of semi-trucks that nobody could find was declared an anti-American who hated the troops and loved terrorists.
The US is the last country standing in the way of the NWO. For how long depends on people realizing that they are being played against each other and manipulated by distortion of facts. You have a choice to not be used as cannon fodder.
Quote:The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.
“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/
Quote: MaxPenThe Civil War was about taxes not slavery. Lincoln made that very clear in his addresses to Congress. I am finding it amazing to see so many, so called educated people, making fools of themselves lately. People need to unite against the instigators behind all this antagonism. Education has been replaced by indoctrination.
The US is the last country standing in the way of the NWO. For how long depends on people realizing that they are being played against each other and manipulated by distortion of facts. You have a choice to not be used as cannon fodder.
There is plenty of evidence several southern states were fighting for slavery. They left records of it.
Read the Mississippi Declaration of Secession. They openly declare slavery as their central interest.
Quote:Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
Here's a quote from Texas secession document -
Quote:"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable"
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
South Carolina
SC held that non-slave holding states were not holding to obligations expected towards slaves passing through their state as one of the causes of succession. Enslaving people held certain rights expected of the non-slave states.
http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/assets/documents/SCarolina-Secession-p1-13.pdf
Quote: CalderWhen I glanced at the census data, I didn't see any indication of who owned whom & how many, just raw head counts by race and status. That number strikes me as high.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.htmlLast edited by: billryan on Aug 19, 2017The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
The 1913 Gettysburg reunion was a Gettysburg Battlefield encampment of American Civil War veterans for the Battle of Gettysburg's 50th anniversary. The June 29–July 4 gathering of 53,407 veterans (~8,750 Confederate)[1] was the largest ever Civil War veteran reunion, and "never before in the world's history [had] so great a number of men so advanced in years been assembled under field conditions" (Chief Surgeon).[2]:60 All honorably discharged veterans in the Grand Army of the Republic and the United Confederate Veterans were invited, and veterans from 46 of the 48 states attended[3] (cf. Nevada).[citation needed] Despite concerns "that there might be unpleasant differences, at least, between the blue and gray"[4] (as after England's War of the Roses and the French Revolution),[5] the peaceful reunion was repeatedly marked by events of Union–Confederate camaraderie.[6] President Woodrow Wilson's July 4 reunion address summarized the spirit: "We have found one another again as brothers and comrades in arms, enemies no longer, generous friends rather, our battles long past, the quarrel forgotten—except that we shall not forget the splendid valor."
More evidence the left will NEvER stop. Protesting a non physical wrestling Hall of Fane. As a Alt Left Icon once said, Get Drunk, Get Laid or get a better paying job. But damn, stop being jealous and do something of use with your life.
Quote: petroglyphhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG Twice as many Americans want to keep statues as want them removed.
Will never matter because nothing is ever enough for the left. Name something, anything most people agree on, it is never enough to the far left.
Pick any issue, give them an inch and they want more. Accept or be called a racist.
Quote: petroglyphhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG Twice as many Americans want to keep statues as want them removed.
Doesn't matter
Its up to the locals
I live in FL
Who am I to say what statues stay up or get torn down in a city a thousand miles from me
Don't want the statue in Charlottesville to come down
Move to Charlottesville, register to vote, work hard to get elected council members that agree with you
Better yet, run for city council yourself after moving there
