Another Civil War Monument To Be Removed
Community
This is ridiculous!! This is a POW tombstone. What is offensive about this?
Next is probably the Confederate grave stones and memorial at Arlington.
"Dude, your arm is infected? It was healing so well after the chainsaw incident. What happened?"
"It was healing but not as fast as I wanted and looked like there would be a scar, so I scratched the crap out of it to keep it open and now it gets worse every day."
"Wouldn't letting it heal, and letting the scar be a reminder of how bad using a chainsaw the wrong way is, be better than this? You may lose that arm."
"Sorry, I didn't catch that. I was too busy scratching my open wound some more."
^^^^^^ Plato's Allegory of the Chainsaw Wound ^^^^^^^^
Should we put up memorials for Nazi POWs? Taliban POWs? Why on Earth should anyone care about the removal of a memorial to POWs from a country that was at war with the USA?
I know you know the difference between your examples and the civil war. Are you in favor if tearing down the Crazy Horse memorial? Indians were at war with the U.S.A and practiced slavery.
We were all Americans, that's is why it was called the civil war...
There are plenty of differences. There's also one thing in common...they were all at war with the United States of America.
Beyond that, the last thing these memorials were doing was trying to preserve anything of value. They were put up a full 100 years after the Civil War ended at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, not in the days after the war ended.
Since we were at war with Canada in 1812, maybe we should not fly their flag or play there anthem at USA Hockey games ? 8>)
Technically, Canada wasn't a country in 1812. The war was with the U.K. Besides, the primary cause of the British wasn't the perpetuation of slavery.
Care to elaborate JTV? Or you just plan on keeping it at the insults and name calling that you seem to be best at?
Civil war wasn't about slavery either.
It's obvious you do not know history very well. The US congress voted to have all confederate servicemen to be reinstated as US Veterans. You've received your history lesson for today.
Another history lesson regarding Civil War Statues.
“The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.
DL, a tiny bit of research would do you some good, rather than just posting memes you saw somewhere online. No legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans. You should read up on what Public Law 85-425 actually did. It most certainly did not grant Confederate soldiers status as US veterans.
I didn't say all monuments were erected in the 60s, but here's the full picture of your memorial in Massachusetts.
"I didn't say all monuments were erected in the 60s, "
"Beyond that, the last thing these memorials were doing was trying to preserve anything of value. They were put up a full 100 years after the Civil War ended at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, not in the days after the war ended."
You sure made it sound like you meant all. Ever think of running for political office?
I realize that former Confederate soldiers weren't Puerto Ricans, but they were self-supporting citizens of these United States, despite defecting for a coupla years.
Most leftists intentionally ignore the fact that these people signed an oath of allegiance at the close of the Civil War, which restored their citizenship in full.
The way I see it their American Veterans and the memorials should be left alone.
The way I see it Pat C is that these guys fought against the United States. Giving the Confederacy a place of prominence is no different than kneeling for the national anthem and is a slap in the face of those that died fighting for the US flag. The ideological hypocrisy of those of you that are fighting for these memorials yet are against people disrespecting the flag by kneeling for the anthem is pretty remarkable.
My Great-grandfather was a Confederate veteran. He filed for Confederate Pension in August 1912 and it was granted in Sept 1913.
Did I read up above where the Confederacy was a foreign power at war with the Union (USA) and deserve no remembrance and no different than Nazis as far as an enemy goes, yet the American Indian was not a foreign nation at war with the Union (USA)?
Never mind that Congress negotiated treaties with them (the tribes) and, as part, deeded lands for reservation, AND allowed them to retain their sovereignty as they maintain to this day.
Weak arguement about the Confederacy, whoever it was that drew that conclusion...
beg,...lower case does in fact have reasoning. You are neither bright enough considering actual facts nor wise enough to engage in the "arguments" of the Civil War concerning America. FACT: Abraham Lincoln's intention was to preserve slavery intact in the southern states (perpetuation) whereby "their" economy, specific agriculture, their ports and the "American" economy, one and the same, could continue to prosper. Territories and future states would be separate and apart from slavery. Interesting that one's liberal/socialists mindset can't be concealed, as devious as they try when penning such disgraceful and disrespectful lines as these and I quote" .."these guys fought against the U.S.".....and "they were all at war with the U.S" Barroom banter in N.H. may get a laugh. .." these guys that fought against the U.S." should have read in truth, " the soldiers of the Confederate States of AMERICA fought against the U.S. of AMERICA. Another fact beyond your limited grasp. ..and this little tidbit exposing your literary might to predispose upon the unsuspecting a derogatory expression... "and they were all at war with the U.S." should have read.."the Confederate States of AMERICA and the United States of AMERICA engaged in a Civil War on all soil American, social in its base in that slavery be confined, and the "PROGRESSION" to other prospective states and territories would be denied. The undue hardships placed on the southern states through exorbitant tariffs from Washington, showing obvious favor to manufacturing in the northern states would also pave the way for this fracture of AMERICANS against AMERICANS. Lastly, and I imagine if allowed to follow all your thoughts of which you obviously believe "everything you think", ..." those that died fighting for the US flag"...should have read.."...those AMERICANS, on both sides of this issue, who have fought and died for the AMERICAN Flag of their social belief". You can not recite the National Anthem withholding the word "AMERICA". The AMERICAN Civil War was never "won" because there was naught to win except death and destruction to its own people,all, AMERICANS. I often wonder what the thinkers, the deep thinkers, would call AMERICAN Democrats and AMERICAN Republicans today so diametrically and vehemently opposed on EVERY social issue replete with the destruction that it wrought's on its people, AMERICANS, everyday. The cannons silenced and the sabers sheathed, yes, in the name of an acceptable civility in a country divided, AMERICA, where their Civil War destroys millions, dwarfing the sacred AMERICANS from 1861-1865, but not a single body bag found in Washington, but on the streets of AMERICA littered. The Civil War continues with friend and foes of AMERICAN descendants now united, but with freedom constantly under attack, and will be always. Your side kick, "everythingfree" and yourself are walking around blind without a cane.
BTW,,,,I see symbols of countries that fought against America everyday in America lauded for their supremacy ...BMW...Toyota,.....Lamborghini...
The Rock
Of course the combatants were all American. That's not the point. Take any issue you want today, the sides are all American. However, only one side of the Civil War fought under the banner of the United States, to defend the Constitution of the United States. The other side did not.
So again, why condone this blatant disrespect for the United States by giving a place of prominence to a group of people who ACTUALLY went to war with the USA to perpetuate the oppression of a people, when most of you do not condone a peaceful expression of protest because you feel it is disrespectful to the country and those that have died fighting under the banner of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA even though they (the protesters) have said that is not the intent? Again, ideological hypocrisy at its finest.
Maybe someday we will but today is not that day..
BEG
"However, only one side of the Civil War fought under the banner of the United States, to defend the Constitution of the United States."
How so? I mean there ARE requirements for states to join the union....not sure what it says about leaving....
Bowbender,
This person just wants to hear him/herself talk. Pay them no mind.
The Rock
Actually, the Confederacy had a stronger claim to Constitutionalism but never mind the facts.
Leftminded, You are a fool beyond measure.
The Rock
To fully understand the Civil War and what can be learned from it, you have to do so without looking through the eyes of thinking it was about slavery, hatred, and race. At least that's what the PhD's do.
For the ones who think the Union had their act together, Sherman was indifferent to slavery, it was secession he was against...
Disagreeing with the Civil War just to disagree with it, well, that's just plain juvenile.
BEG you are correct on the on the law that I posted. The confederates were reinstated as us citizens except for Davis and some other top officials. The widows and children of confederate troops did receive survivor benifits same as union soldiers. Confederate soldiers also received military burial benifits such as receiving headstones The monument that is being Taken down was put of during the civil war centennial. I was back East as an 11 years old in 1961 and civil war centennial things were all over such as selling all kinds of memorabilia and museums and one former prison(Libby) in Richmond all had banners up celebrating and rememberance of it. Lee became a respected general in both north and south after the war. He had character that was admired. In reality the south had no chance of winning the war. New York alone had more manufacturing than the whole south did. In a war of attrition the south had no chance in both goods and men to win a war. I have direct descendents that fought in one of the Pennsylvania regiments during the civil war and also some that fought in the Revolutionary war. I still have great sentiments towards the south. Those names on that monument are equivalent to a headstone and should not be removed. I doubt if there is any other headstones for those POWs. When all the monuments are removed the same people will not be satisfied and will want something else.
Those who actually do try to understand, through diligent research, the actual causes and motivations behind the war between the states are far better served than the ignorance spewing from some who's understanding of that history isn't even in the ballpark of "rudimentary."
Oddly (or perhaps not) those bloviating fools usually make the most noise, hearkening to the words of the bard to best encapsulate their "contribution" to this thread "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
*sigh*
By "those who do try to understand, through diligent research, the causes and motivations behind the war between the States" I'm assuming you mean the historians whose lives are devoted to this. They are pretty united on the causes and motivations...
Slavery was certainly a big issue, but it would be a mistake to think hundreds of thousands of southerners who died chose to fight to protect plantation owners right to own human "property", or that hundreds of thousands of northerners who died chose to fight in hopes of ending slavery.
Lincoln was a white separatist. He was no fan of slavery but he was also against interracial marriage, legal equality, social equality and wanted freed slaves to be recolonized in Africa and then later South America.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to slave states that didn't secede and it didn't apply to areas of Confederate states that the Union had control of. If you were a slave in a place the Union controlled, you stayed a slave.
Here's a more detailed link of causes. Here's something to consider. Since you had to be wealthy or at least upper class to own slaves I wonder what the majority of the people that fought for the south reasons were? People with money got their chosen politicians elected and they owned slaves. This link goes into some of the financial reasons that affected the common man. Both sides found out when they stepped onto their foes land how hard they fought. Had the south just concentrated on pushing the north across the Mason Dixon line there could have been a settlement made. The south hated Lincoln. His goal was to abolish slavery and fought for the 13th amendment. The opposition, Democrats. What were the southerners? democrats, who started the KKK, Democrats. One could say the Civil War was about the war between the Republican and Democratic parties views.
The first rule in engaging in any discussion is do not assume; if in doubt request clarification. Perhaps I am also guilty of making an assumption; first that the word "diligent" would have obvious meaning and second that the broad, generic "those" would be understood to apply to anyone who sees the value of diligent research.
Lastly, I would hope that anyone who feels compelled to posit opinion on any subject would have no less devotion to the truth than any section of the populace, historians included.
No Glunt, it wouldn't be a mistake. The prevailing thought of the time was that slaves were an inferior race and abolishment of slavery would put these individuals on near-equal ground with the white southern population, something they did not believe slaves deserved. As one politician put it, “Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.” Non-slaveholding southerners felt they were fighting for their place in society, that abolishment of slavery was the end of their racial caste system that was so near-and-dear to their world view. That was just one of (but I would posit the main one) the reasons that southerners who didn't own slaves went to war for slavery.
But to ignore the significance of historical impact the Civil War had is the first step to annihilate the survival of this country, lest you repeat the same mistake ten fold.
Lincoln did what the founders warned against and while the Union survived we are suffering from it still today. The War of Northern Aggression and politicians have created the race problems we have today.
Brace yourselves. Dozens of cities are going to celebrate "Confederates Day" instead of Independence Day this year. They fought against the United States in a bloody war lasting years. They believed in slavery, racism, oppression of women, torturing enemies and wanted to live outside any rule from the US government.
This is fiction news, but if you replace "Confederates Day" with "Indigenous Peoples Day" and "Independence Day" with "Columbus Day", its nonfiction.
Why is celebrating native Americans who went to war with the US a good thing and just recognizing Americans who did the same so unacceptable? I have no issue with statues, memorials and other symbols of Native Americans being around. It was an incredible time in our history with stories of bravery and atrocities on both sides. Two sides each wanting to defeat the other so they could live the life they wanted. It was part of what shaped us. No need to bury history.
Saying Confederate symbols are intolerable because they represent slavery is like saying the US flag is intolerable because it represents genocide or a statue of a native American warrior is intolerable because they hated everything we stood for.
Because some will say that Native Americans were fighting for their homeland that was trying to be stolen from them, the Confederacy was outright blatant sedition and insurrection.
Yes, autrocities on both sides. However, Native Americans were just as much a migratory explorer as the Europeans were...
