Question of the Day: Tear Down Confederate Military Statues?

“Their success on the battlefield leaves no doubt about the brilliance of Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, but too often what they fought for is ignored,” Hosea L. Martin writes at chicagotribune.com. “the subjugation of black men and women in the South and the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. This makes Lee and Jackson and the armies they led terrorists, and not heroes embarked on a ‘noble crusade.’ African-Americans are outraged that their statues have become altars where tyranny and murder are worshiped. In Germany, there are no statues of Erwin Rommel and Erich von Manstein, who also were brilliant military leaders, but they fought for Hitler.”

So . . . take down monuments to Confederate combatants?

comments

  1. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Absolutely not.

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      Whoever Hosea Martin is, he’s an ignorant fool. The Confederacy never sought the violent overthrow of the US government.It simply chose to leave the US and form its own country and government. It did not mount offensive campaigns in the North to capture and occupy territory. With very few exceptions it fought in the South against invading Union armies. And its troops always fought in uniform, unlike the leftist terrorists who demand the removal of these statues.

      1. avatar n64456 says:

        Using Mr Hosea’s logic; we can invade California and overthrow their government, because they want to secede… We all knew they were traitors to the Constitution, anyway…..

        1. avatar ProfessorManque says:

          He doesnt say the Confederacy was in the wrong because they “wanted” to secede, he says because they seceded.

          So are you too stupid to recognize the difference?

          Or are you purposely lying about what was said and the logic of his claim?

          This is typical am radio-style nonresponse by the way, you claim someone said something they did not say and then you proceed to pointlessly refute that imaginary claim… this is one of many ways educated folks immediately recognize how dumb/dishonest yall are…

      2. avatar Jambo says:

        I mean, as long as you ignore the whole reason for their secession, namely slavery.

        1. avatar Alexander says:

          Except that slavery was not the whole reason for the secession by any stretch of the facts.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          The South’s attachment to its “peculiar institution” was central to the causes of the war. Prior to the war, there was the Missouri compromise, but that law did not settle the question of the expansion of slavery into new territories. And if you read about Bloody Kansas”, you get a striking lesson in the atrocities committed in order to insure a vote either for or against slavery, including full blown massacres of unarmed civilians–terrorism, as it is called today. The Southerners believed that the North intended to outlaw slavery, which they rightfully considered an attack on the main driving force of their economy and prosperity. The preservation of slavery was a major, indeed central plank of the Democratic Party platform in 1860.

          Although it is true that personal property rights (in human beings) and states’ rights were also critical issues, these issues were framed by the slavery issue. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said as much. “Frankly declaring that the slavery institution as it existed at the start had its origin in European and American cupidity, and was not an unmitigated evil, he justified the Confederacy in protecting that species of property against the assaults of a majority, but did not declare it to be the” corner stone” of the new Republic, as is often quoted against him. He held that slavery as a domestic institution under the control of the States was attacked by those who sought to establish the rule that the Federal government had the power to regulate any domestic institution of any State.” (theperryhistorians.org/resources/STEPHENS$2C+The+Confederate+Military+History.pdf)

        3. avatar Jambo says:

          Alex, if slavery was not the prime reason for secession, why does every single state declare it as the prime reason in their declarations of secession? All you had to do was pay attention in middle school history and you’d know this, or alternatively you could have googled it.

        4. avatar Alexander says:

          May I suggest NOT using your Department of Education approved middle school textbook or the Google Bubble as a reference? As well explained elsewhere in this thread, and of course, from the contemporary writings, the Civil War (actually, Civil War II, as Civil War I was fought in 1776-1789) had many complicated causes, more to do with two very different cultures having an economic war. But, as a quick reference, remember that DC, MO and MD remained slave states/territory until after the Civil War. And remember that the Northern cry against slavery first happened only in 1862, a year into fighting and a year of Northern failures. For those government-school educated historians – explain the above. Then start learning and appreciating history. But tearing down statues has nothing to do with slavery – but everything to do with creating divisions within the country – on any basis or baseless whatsoever. Straight out of Alinsky’s book (Rules for Radicals), which, of course, is simplified Marx and his theory of permanent dialectic struggle between the classes. (they don’t teach that in Department of Education approved curricula).

        5. avatar Jambo says:

          Alex, I get that you distrust the education system, but this didn’t come from there. These are primary sources from the time that say exactly why the states were seceding. It was because of slavery. This is not up for debate. You can choose to delude yourself, but that’s reality.

          https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

        6. avatar Alexander says:

          What you are quoting is valid, but it is politicians’ declarations to get the populace excited for a war where they are about to die. That is part of the story, no argument. But not a complete story. If you look at the events leading to the first shot at Ft. Sumter, the confrontation there was provoked. Lincoln could have done nothing and no one would have attacked. He chose to send reinforcements, and the act was well advertised, creating a situation where Carolina had to either lose face and swallow an intentional affront (once the fort were to get reinforced) or attack prior to the reinforcements arriving. They chose poorly, but my point is that the War was desired by the Northern States and not because they cared about slavery (again, DC, MO and MD remained slave states), but because they wanted to establish their economic hegemony. This is a very complicated issue; the more you study it, the more complicated it gets. But the important thing now is that the thugs and their elitist masters don’t give a damn about slavery, especially in the past. Real slavery exists today, in many parts of Africa and Asia. People are being bought, sold, raped and worked to death. The elitist shit doesn’t care. They care about destroying America; and they’re succeeding.

        7. avatar IdahoBoy says:

          See above posts for concrete examples of ignoring slavery as the root cause of the civil war.

        8. avatar ProfessorManque says:

          Alex is too stupid to even recognize that the reasons the North fought the war tell us nothing about the overwhelmingly preeminent reason the South fought the war namely to perpetuate white supremacist chattel slavery.

          Thats what I like about stupid folks like Alex though, they unwittingly refute themselves. Alex poses as having studied this issue so extensively that he alone recognizes how enormously complicated the motivations are for the war, yet in the same post he conflates the reasons of the North with the reason of the South, as if the former tells us anything about the latter. Learn the basic tenets of logic and develop some low-level capacity for critical analysis before posing as a Civil War savant you clown

      3. avatar Dan in CO says:

        Yes, I came to the comments to say what you said so well. They fought for states rights and adequate representation for their plight.

        Damn revisionists of history would like to remove the things they do not understand.

      4. avatar Tom says:

        This is what people miss. Completely. The south likes to say the secession was for “states rights” yet it was for slavery. The states rights to own slaves. Now, if you take the obvious moral points of this, that slavery is a deplorable act, out of the discussion in some regards their argument makes sense. The south was agriculture. They were farmers who owned slaves and the slaves were their cheap labor and in a sense their human machinery. They viewed the north as the city folk who were trying to change their lives so dramatically. It would impact all levels of their economy and daily lives. So for the south it made sense. They needed their way of life. It’s just unfortunate that way of life involved the enslavement of people. So the war was 100% because of slavery. Sure there might have been a few other sticking points but everything boiled over once new states were founded and the south wanted slavery allowed there. Slavery was the main reason for the civil war. Period.

        These statues were not put up after the war for some memorial. The confederate battle flag was not added to various state flags after the war for some way to honor those fallen or a memorial. These monuments and flag changes occurred right around the time of the civil rights movement and the Jim Crow era south. The federal government said all states must desegregate. Certain states resisted and argued. Again, “states rights! It’s about state’s rights!” yet proving again that it means their right to discriminate or subjugate minority populations. They eventually had to agree to follow the federal government’s guidelines. So what did they do? Their protest was to change their state flags to have the confederate battle flag and to erect monuments and name parks after confederate soldiers and generals. These monuments and changing of state flags were protests against the federal government for wanting desegregation. It’s essentially those states saying “You are forcing us to do this. Here is our protest. We still disagree with desegregation and we want everyone to know including those citizens in our states who are minorities.” You cannot argue this. There were none of these monuments before hand. The state flags did not change before hand. It was a protest stating the states don’t believe black people should have equal rights and be treated equally.

        Do we have monuments in pearl harbor for the Japanese who attacked us? Do we have monuments in parks in Georgia honoring the dead german nazi soldiers who passed in the war? What about erecting a monument at ground zero in Manhattan for those radical terrorists who lost their lives that day? No we don’t. Because we disagree with a government or group of people that views another group of people as subhuman, animals. We don’t honor those who waged war for the right to subjugate other people. We especially don’t erect memorials to those who found so hard to enslave a population of people as a protest because we feel those people are still less than human.

        I lived in the south. As a young child, maybe 10, I remember being enamored with the civil war. I immediately became a civil war enthusiast due to it’s unique nature. I would spend hours walking the grounds and andersonville prison and studying the pictures and displays at the museum. I distinctly remember our social studies chapter on states flags after becoming a civil war buff. My young 10 year old self couldn’t grasp any justification for why the state I lived in had the confederate flag incorporated into it’s design. It made me uncomfortable even at 10 years old and I couldn’t really formulate the words as to why. I couldn’t understand how my teacher could come up with such a weak justification of “state’s rights” that was able to assuage their moral conflict. I just couldn’t understand how one side, so hell bent on the enslavement of black people, which lost the war, was being glorified on a state flag. Then my confusion continued when visiting another state and seeing confederate monuments. How one town could dedicate a town square and a statue to a failed movement and bloody war to fight for the right to enslave another group of people. As a young child with no influence of racism or no real experience navigating the uncomfortable waters involved I knew this was wrong. It made me feel wrong, dirty almost, and I couldn’t really put my finger on it. Until years later when the recent fight for the right to display the confederate flag started and I was reminded of those times. I felt uncomfortable because I understood that it was a sign that people still felt that way. That people still felt this deep seeded racism towards black people. That the very sate I was living in was protesting their rights and that the teacher standing up in the front of the class was teaching us that slavery was wrong yet somehow the very symbol of the fight for slavery was somehow a proud state symbol.

        You can fly your confederate battle flag from your truck or your home. That is 100% your right to do so. I will never tell you or any other person that you don’t have the right to say anything you want or to display any symbols you want. If you wish to do so. Go for it. What I disagree with is the adoption of confederate symbols on a state level. I vehemently disagree that a state should be allowed to display the flag as a part of their state flag. It’s a big middle finger to minorities that live in that very state and are supporting the government of that state. How can a minority person feel confident in their leaders, their police, and that their needs will be respected as citizens of this nation when the very state they live in displays symbols in their flag that effectively tells them their government thinks of them as second class citizens. How can a minority feel confident and comfortable in their state when the parks that they are welcome to relax and take in recreation are honoring people who revolted against the government and started a war because they wanted to own slaves? How can they feel not threatened, marginalized, or segregated when the very states they live in are essentially telling them they don’t matter?

        We are bigger than this man. We don’t need to be honoring those who fought to continue racism. Those monuments and remembrances of the war should be left for historical civil war sites only. We cannot forget our past because those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Yet we should not be glorifying the actions of those who fought to enslave an entire population of people. People who are our brother and sister citizens of this great nation. We should be fighting to become a greater more united nation. Not fighting to keep symbols of hatred and bigotry because of some perceived state’s rights.

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

        1. avatar TJ says:

          Well said.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “These monuments and flag changes occurred right around the time of the civil rights movement and the Jim Crow era south.” That’s only half true. Many monuments and flag changes date back to well before the civil rights movement.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      He commits a historical heresy common to politicized arguments. Just as archeological research is dependent on studying artifacts within their strata, historical methodology is predicated on maintaining the contexts within which historical events and people lived. People with political motivations find it useful to impose their contemporary interpretations on historical events. When that happens, we get the following: ” . . . This makes Lee and Jackson and the armies they led terrorists, and not heroes embarked on a ‘noble crusade.’ Well, not quite. And the blatant fact that the good Mr. Martin is woefully ignorant of our nation’s history is irrelevant because, after all he’s doing politics and not history.

      1. avatar JOSEPH L. SEXTON says:

        General Robert E. Lee was a good man according to a recent article in my newspaper by a Minister. He inherited 63 slaves who he set free, long before President Lincoln thought of it. And as one person related, there is STILL slavery in Africa & other countries, Ironically there would have been NO African Slaves had their OWN Countryman not sold them to the Dutch Traders, who in turn sold them to the Southerners for their Agricultural needs. Slavery existed before & in the time of The Christ, the Egyptians had slaves thousands of years ago, so stop making it an AMERICAN problem, as it was always & is a terrible thing. If a state wants to honor their past it is THEIR choice & the Federal Government should stay the heck out of it. By the way, it was the REPUBLICANS who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act,it was the Dumocrats who fought viciously against it, but the Fake New Media never tells the REAL HISTORY & I’m sure it has been eliminated form our present History Coursed just as the sale of fellow Africans into slavery has.

        1. avatar TJ says:

          You bring up a lot of information that is meaningless to this argument. What do you think people think of when they see a statue of Lee ? Especially black people.

        2. So let’s do what black people want even though they may be uneducated on the true issue surrounding the Civil War.

        3. avatar TJ says:

          I have no doubt they are very aware of the true issue of the Civil War. Wish I could say the same about you.

        4. avatar JOSEPH L. SEXTON says:

          I thought this was a DISCUSSION by intelligent people, not people trying to insult others & stir up trouble.What I wrote was relevant to this discussion as MOST people are ignorant of Slaery & the RACIST past of the Dumocrat’s & that General Robert E. Lee was just a man fighting for his States Independence, not some far right person.

          If memory serves me OUR Constitution allows the Federal Government only 4 things, protecting CITIZENS is to me the main one which these Politicians no longer do.They steal our money in taxes & distribute it to whomever will vote for them & we have no say. Do you not find it strange that it’s “The People’s Party” that wants to disarm law abiding CITIZENS, any one with a brain know Criminals & such are called that because they DON’T obey our laws. So what good is more restrictive laws on the law abiding in not for some agenda, isn’t over 22,000 laws enough ???

    3. avatar GunDoc says:

      Want to really make Libtard heads pop? Ask them what their thoughts are on the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.

      Also, since Lincoln was the biggest mass murdering, racist, and (arguably) worst president in history, the Lincoln memorial should be torn down:

      1. On the expansion of slavery:

      Lincoln said:

      “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas.”

      2. On shipping blacks back to Africa:

      Lincoln said:

      In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers.”

      3. On outlawing slavery in the south (before the rebellion).

      Lincoln said:

      “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

      4. On equality:

      Lincoln said:

      “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

      5. On inter-racial marriage:

      Lincoln said:

      “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

      Lee’s one mistake was not pursuing the Federal army and taking D.C. He could have drained the swamp for good.

      Slavery was on its way out, and would have ended on its own within five years. The war was nothing more than a power grab, with slavery as a pat and convenient talking point.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “Slavery was on its way out, and would have ended on its own within five years”

        If you dig past your out of context quotes a little bit you’ll find that Lincoln said much the same thing.

        Is it trendy to bash Lincoln for some reason? I’ve seen a couple of these bizarre screeds against him recently.

        1. avatar Chris Delboy says:

          Unfortunately, it is trendy to bash ALL Republicans.

      2. avatar Det. Nick Valentine says:

        How on earth can you think slavery would have just ended within 5 years? What evidence do you have for this claim?

        1. avatar GunDoc says:

          You know when you are over target when you receive flak.

          Lincoln was a mass murderer. His actions are far more important than the “out of context” quotes. It is only becoming “fashionable” now that more people are being made aware of who he really was. Not sure why lionizing the greatest killer of Americans in history was ever considered acceptable behavior.

          If slavery had been the sole reason for the war, the government could have simply purchased every single slave (both from the North AND South) and freed them. For a fraction of what the war cost in treasure, not to mention lives and property.

          And good to know that racism is acceptable “in context.”

          As for the evidence slavery was on the way out: two words- cotton gin. The reality was, the South had been looking for an exit strategy to eliminate slavery, simply for economic reasons. It was becoming a financial drain, especially with the potential greater yields due to mechanization.

          One who seriously delves into history will come to similar conclusions- the war was unnecessary, and precipitated by D.C. The Confederates single biggest error was falling for the bait and attacking first, which gave the appearance of a “moral high ground” to D.C.

        2. avatar Chris Delboy says:

          Case and point that slavery would have ended eventually – look at Brazil where slavery ended peacefully in 1888.

      3. avatar JOSEPH L. SEXTON says:

        Thank you, here’s some more ammunition, Robert E Lee inherited 63 slaves which he set FREE, long before Mr. Lincoln even thought of it. Also it was NOT slavery but HIGH Tariff’s on their goods sent North that actually started it all. Also a point no one EVER brings up,The Southerners got their SLAVES because they were sold by their OWN People,, who had already enslaved them & sold them to the Dutch Traders who brought them to us & AFRICA still has Slavery today. As I say, G-D LOVES STUPID people, He created so many Dumocrats >>>>>

        1. avatar GunDoc says:

          It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to laud the men who took the step of severing ties to the British Empire, yet denigrate and vilify the men of the Confederacy for doing the exact same thing in almost analogous circumstances.

          In truth, the conflict could have been termed the Second American Revolution. But it is not remembered as such, because the Confederacy lost. In the same way, had the Colonists lost their bid for autonomy, the conflict would have been remembered as “The 1776 Rebellion” and we would be talking about how evil and traitorous the rabble-rousing, ingrate colonists had been to dare bite the hand of Mother Britannia.

          Slavery is the canard that allows us, staring at that distant mirror, to congratulate ourselves, convinced that “the good guys won, as they always do.”

          Truth is, the “good guys” never win (or almost never). Evil has a way of doing whatever it takes to win, and damn the scruples. History is written by the best liars, and it is 90% marketing. After all, what kind of salesman would badmouth his own product?

          Case in point, conditions in New York for immigrants (mostly Irish), were in some ways far more squalid than those experienced by slaves of the South. And there were more freed blacks in the South than in the North.

          The North had exactly zero moral high ground.

      4. avatar Mark N. says:

        These comments by Lincoln taken completely out of context, and ignore that Lincoln’s attitudes towards slavery evolved over the course of the war. Moreover, his comments that he did not have the power to ban slavery was based in Constitutional doctrine, not personal belief, and in this he was likely correct. (See Article 4, section 1.) Further, although there were the rabid abolitionists, most people were fairly neutral on the subject, and mostly quite racist, including, for example, the German American immigrants in the plains states of Illinois and Indiana. Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation months before he issued it, and years after the start of the war, knowing that releasing it too early would cause division in the Republican Party, which had both liberal (abolitionist) and conservative (pro-slavery) factions. Moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation freed slave only in the South as a war measure to attack the basis of the southern economy. IN so doing, Lincoln demonstrated his great political abilities. I suggest you read Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” as an excellent and well-documented history of this issue.

      5. avatar TJ says:

        Most Black Confederate soldiers did not join the Confederate army of their own free will. Most were slaves, they were forced to fight. If they tried to surrender to the Union they were shot by their own commanders and troops. There were a few free black men that fought for the south but not thousands by any means.

        1. You just won the lifetime achievement award for the most fucking retarded statement ever posted on the internet.
          So let’s hand guns to slaves and shoot them if they try to defect.
          Hmmm. What if they shot their commanders first then defected?
          Are you trying to imply that negros are too stupid to figure that out?
          What are you? Racist?

        2. avatar TJ says:

          Do some research MORON. If they tried to do anything but fight the enemy, there would be hundreds of confederate soldiers around them who would kill them instantly.

        3. Research can mean looking up lies.
          A moron wouldn’t turn his gun on his advocates when he out numbers his enemies.

        4. avatar TJ says:

          Yup, definitely a moron. Did the eclipse finally convince your pea sized brain that the Earth is not flat ? I doubt it. You probably think that books that say the world is round is just a communist plot. Hahaha, what an idiot.

        5. There are two kinds of smart people in this world. Those with brains that can remember every lie ever told by their indoctrination and those that can analyze.
          I see bullshit. You regurgitate bullshit.

        6. avatar TJ says:

          You wouldn’t know bullshit if it was shoved in your face. You’re too fucking stupid to know what bullshit is.

      6. avatar ProfessorManque says:

        So in case anyone mistook gundoc for an erudite person with a nuanced understanding of the issue here is the moron site where he copied and pasted this nonsense:

        http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/top-5-racist-quotes-by-abraham-lincoln.203268709/

        The failure to date any of he quotes also immediatedly identifies gundoc as a moron since it is well known that Lincolns views evolved significant on slavery, colonization, and race generally.

        It’s also worth noting that the original poster wrongly attributes the sentiments of Reverend James Mitchell to Lincoln and gundoc stupidly repeats the error. And it is not even a quote but a characterization of what Mitchell wrote to Lincoln. Here is the link to the scholarly site supporting my refutation of the moron gundoc copy paste from a commercial moron site:

        “On May 15, 1862, the Reverend James Mitchell of Indiana., later appointed Commissioner of Emigration, presented Lincoln with additional reasons why the Negroes should be colonized. Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people, he declared; as long as the Negroes continued to live with the whites they would constitute a threat to the national life. Family life might also collapse and the increase of “the mixed breed bastards,” might some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

        https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cache/0/5/9/0599998.0006.003/00000031.tif.10.pdf#page=10;zoom=75

        So nothing special here, just another ignorant big-mouthed neo-Confederate regurgitating nonsense

  2. avatar Jomo says:

    No. These men, for all their flaws, are part of our history. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. And, quite frankly, the left isn’t concerned with Lee and Jackson. They just want to destroy America.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      That’s the truth of it.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      That’s the absolute truth. If you destroy your history, you will repeat it. The same reason why Aushwitz and the Berlin Wall should never be torn down. Americas civil war battlefields and monuments are sacred ground where we should go to learn about our history. Not to worship, or defile it.

      1. avatar Big Brother says:

        Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of “The Orwellian Bill” to ask for an emergency $1 Billion to the Taliban to assist in the ongoing effort to remove Hindu and Buddhist statuary, monuments and other places of worship that do not contain “trigger warnings” of the emotional trauma caused by these constructs to Moslem snowflakes and worshippers.

    3. avatar Desert Dave says:

      Monuments then the Constitution, that is the plan I fear. It is not a stretch of the imagination since most if not all of the founding fathers were slave owners that our founding documents are flawed and need to be torn down as well. That appears to be the plan. Once they get that done they will be in snowflake Hell, having destroyed the only free nation in the history of the planet.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        This is my ultimate fear if everything continues. How far is too far? “The constitution was written by slave owners, and this country built by them, so we should destroy that document which sets to continue slavery and racial prejudices.”

        The point in which that document is under direct siege I feel will be the time to start an actual violent resistance. Until then we must be strong in our resolve and use words, until that no longer has any notion of working. These people are only continuing their ridiculous notions because nobody is checking them and telling them it’s unacceptable behavior and that they need to stop. Whether verbally or physically(arrests, pepper sprayed, etc), they need to firm explanation that their actions are not going to be tolerated, but until that is done, these things with statues, and violent protests on both sides will continue.

        1. avatar Alexander says:

          “Until then we must be strong in our resolve and use words, until that no longer has any notion of working.” – The reason why the Nazis went to considerable expenditure of time and resources in moving the Jews and other undesirables from camp to camp with ever increasing levels of brutality until the Final Solution was to condition the people to lose any concept of resistance. One step at a time – political correctness, firing for thought crimes, re-writing history textbooks, refusing to publish “controversial” books, statues, 2nd A, now 1st A, SWAT instead of the 4th A. Should I continue, or can we fill the rest of the conditioning?

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          That’s the number 1 reason to fight on this and every issue.

          “we shall fight on the beaches,
          we shall fight on the landing grounds,
          we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
          we shall fight in the hills;
          we shall never surrender”

      2. avatar Just Someguy says:

        We honor the founders in spite of the fact that they owned slaves. The primary reason for honoring confederates is that they actively fought to preserve slavery, which is not a good reason. Take the monuments down.

    4. avatar BWGRP says:

      Wow, I hope the rest of you read this post, because he is right. Its about our history as a nation. These ass hats on the left don’t have a clue.

    5. avatar Steve in TX says:

      Tear down the stairs and replace them with statues of Republicans like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman.

  3. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    I feel that removing any historical monument of a soldier or an army that represented a portion of the United States is absolutely wrong and horrendous. I am not a racist, however trying to erase historical statues is not the way to repair anything if anything you want to remember the past so you’re not destined to repeat it. I live in Florida where all this BS is going on right now and it’s absolutely stupid.

  4. avatar Vhyrus says:

    This is straight up iconoclasm. The people agitating for this are no better than the ISIS scum that raid museums and smash up babylonian statues. They can all kiss my fat ass.

  5. avatar Dennis says:

    Nope. Leave them alone!

  6. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    I’d like to see the statues, etc. be offered to the people who want them. They can pay for them, and the money returned to the taxpayers (where tax money was used, of course). Once these things are on private property, anyone can “worship” the statues as much as they want… just as with any other religion. And, if some others don’t like that… tough toe nails.

    Otherwise, I don’t give a damn.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      So we should take down and privatize the Iwo Jima memorial then? The reality is that these statues are historical landmarks. You don’t see the Italians tearing down the Colloseum.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        I don’t really care what is done with them. They are not “history.” They often represent small parts of history, but that history would remain if they all crumbled to dust. The Colloseum means absolutely nothing to me, and has no part in my life. Let those who care do what they will with it. None of my business.

        And, just so you know, my minor in college WAS history. I studied enough world and US history to realize that most of it is probably very little related to what actually happened. The victors write the history, remember – and everyone has their own viewpoint and agenda. There is no “historian” in the world that could see, let alone write the absolute truth. The absolute truth is probably unknowable – so wars and riots over some opinion or other about it seems really stupid to me.

        Let’s use our minds and memories for things that are important to survival. Statues don’t cut it for me.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          This isn’t about some Confederate statutes of guys long dead. This is about the marxist and communist founded progressives attacking American history and creating fear and loathing in the minds of our present generation for our past.

          Just as the cultural revolution in China was tearing down all the old statues and symbols, and murdering anyone that didn’t bow to their ideology, the French revolution cutting the heads off of those that did not agree with their “cultural revolution”, and now the progressive supported BLM and the anti-fa terrorists attacking the right and all that do not believe in their marxist)communist based ideology; the Confederate statues are simply one more example of the left intent to completely destroy Western culture, to replace it with a communist “utopia”.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          You miss the point, I think. The statues, etc. are not the problem either way. They are also not the meat of history, however you see it, but transient representations of different viewpoints. In the long run, the statues don’t really matter to our survival as human beings. It is our attitudes and actions that matter there. Would history vanish and civilization be crushed if all those statues suddenly melted? Why do you think that? …if you do, of course.

          The violence, murder, and assault on people is a whole other thing. THAT must be dealt with decisively. Not because of the statues, but because those evils are real crimes against real people here and now.

          Those who want to control everyone else, by whatever means, are simply using this latest nonsense to distract as many people as possible from the real problems, the real threat, and the real battle. Remember all of the “transgender” BS a week or so ago? Same thing. The controllers keep moving the goal posts to keep as many as possible fighting each other. Long past time to ignore them and get on with saving what can be saved of the HUMAN race.

        3. avatar Rincoln says:

          Statues serve as more than mere figure pieces. As you’ve already stated, the majority of U.S. history taught today is woefully inadequate. Having a publicly visible reminder may well be the cause of someone actually educating themselves outside the indoctrinated institutions we call “schools.”

        4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          I seriously doubt that. Seems far more likely that the statue – symbol – will merely reinforce the nonsense taught in the government “school.” Did you think those coming out of such schools have been taught any kind of critical, independent thinking?

        5. avatar ThomasR says:

          I think you’re missing the forest for the trees Mama Liberty. The statues are some of the trees in their larger agenda. The left/progressives are using various means to assert power and control over our civilization. They do this by controlling our language with being politically correct, calling anyone that disagrees with their agenda racist, homophobic, transphobe, xenophobic, etc..

          And anyone that is not willing to be cowed by the name calling , they are bringing out their versions of the viokent facist brown shirts, the BLM and the Anti-Fa, to beat any detractors into submission.

  7. avatar JPT says:

    Can someone please inform the Chicago Tribune that the southern states didn’t want to overthrow the government, they just tried to leave it.

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      Isn’t that the way this nation was founded? We sought to leave the British Empire, not destroy it.

      1. avatar Rincoln says:

        That’s racist. We cannot tolerate such obvious falsehoods.

        /sarc

  8. avatar pwrserge says:

    How about we start with the people actually guilty of genocide? There are statues of Lenin all over the US.

    If the alt left didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

    The simple fact is that anybody actually affected by the people depicted in these statues has been dead for over a century. Whiney alt left terrorists don’t get to rewrite history just because it offends them.

  9. avatar ConcernedAmerican says:

    Tear Them Down? Sure as long as you tear down the Statue of Liberty, The Washington Monument, i mean where will it stop? When will we stop those who hate True Freedom from rewriting the history books and erasing our heritage?

  10. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Reconstruction worked because the North didn’t treat the South like Allied Europe treated Germany after WW1. There is a reason why the Marshal Plan was enacted after WW2. These monuments existed as part of the healing of a divided nation. There is a valuable lesson to be learned from these monuments but that story doesn’t get the ratings.

    Next up, exhuming all the bodies at Arlington because they are buried on land formerly owned by Robert E Lee.

  11. avatar John in Utah says:

    Tear them down, or at the very least remove them from public property. Lee didn’t want statutes of himself and his fellow Confederates erected because… it would promote further division. What has it done? Promoted further division. Somehow, despite changes in the Constitution, in law, and in the hearts and minds of nearly all Americans, the division that erupted in the Civil War remains here. It’s time to stop celebrating it.

    1. avatar Ed says:

      Would you like the pen to re-write history? That is a serious socialist mindset right there.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “That is a serious socialist mindset right there.”

        You’re *far* too kind. Destroying or re-writing history is straight from the communist playbook.

        Look at any North Korean school textbook for an example, like “Who started the Korean War?”.

        I bet PwrSerge got a taste of that in the 80’s in Ukraine.

        (And Dr Vino in Poland…)

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The Soviet Union’s take on WWI and WWII was something that needed to be seen to be believed. If you believed Soviet history classes, WWII didn’t involve the “western” powers at all. The Red Army rode WWII as a source of public propaganda for decades.

          They even called it “The Great Patreotic War”… (in the fatherland sense, not actual patriotism.

    2. avatar Warren says:

      Or if we’re gonna leave them up, let’s also put up monuments that commemorate the auction blocks, the lynching trees, the slave trader ships…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        VIOLENT THREAT DELETED

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I read that before it was deleted and would like to point out that it was not a threat directed at Warren.

        2. avatar Warren says:

          I too saw what was written before it was deleted, and seconding what JWT said, that wasn’t a violent threat directed at me. At no point did I feel threatened. In fact, it was probably one of the tamer “threats” I’ve come across here.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Thank you, JWT, and Warren.

          As to the ‘gist’ of the comment, I really don’t like Leftists… 🙂

      2. avatar henry bowman says:

        How about we put out a statue of blacks selling other blacks into slavery?

        Or the trillions wasted trying to make unequal people “equal” because “muh feels”?

        Of the manorial to the countless lost cities thanks to the black politicians?

        Deal?

      3. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        That’s actually a great idea.

      4. avatar Mark N. says:

        Ahem…such monuments do exist. Not sure about ships, but ships from that era are fairly rare to begin with, but the rest most certainly do.

      5. avatar Hank says:

        Alright. Only if we put up statues of the African kings and Muslim ottoman leaders who created and exploited African slavery, long before the Europeans stumbled upon it. How about monuments in the Caribbean and South America where slavery was far larger and much worse than in North America.

      6. avatar Straight Talk with DC Hannah says:

        If you want those monuments, then build them. That’s the beauty of free speech and property rights, which are under attack by Antifa and their fellow travelers.

      7. Wouldn’t be the dumbest idea. In Atlanta, we have a street named Cynthia McKinney BLVD.
        Yes…that Cynthia McKinney.

    3. avatar Tile floor says:

      theyve been up for decades, even a century or more in some cases.

      This is the first time in my life I’ve seen them cause division. It’s the new trendy thing to be outraged about. No one cared until it became trendy to do so.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        They’ve been causing division since the days there were first erected. Look up General Lee’s stance on them and you’ll see, even within his lifetime, they were divisive. Lee argued against them because he was focused on the healing of the nation as a whole. (Which is why, oddly enough, if you were going to pull down Confederate statues, Lee should be the last one you should focus on.)

  12. avatar Reggie says:

    Such statues and monuments can simultaneously mean different things to different people. For me such things are a reminder of how far we’ve come. We are supposed to learn from history, not erase it.

  13. avatar Jeff says:

    Just the opinions and desires of a few forcing the rest of us to eat a shit sandwich. Maybe they should try learning history instead of trying to erase it.

  14. avatar Pistol Pap says:

    These statues have been around for decades , some a hundred years . I would say 98% of the ppl that are protesting never know who these statues depicted . These statues are Inadament objects that have never denied anyone justice or opportunity . Who cares , #blackguy

  15. avatar Stoney Man says:

    Orwell said it best:


    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

    Besides the self entitled blacks should sit down and shut up. Every tribe on earth has been enslaved at one time or another be they white, black brown yellow or red. Your black struggle is no less or more important than any other tribes struggle to live and remain free. Your timeline is just different.

  16. avatar kap says:

    Obama-ites win again because they are black and special, backed by Eunuchs in the body politic
    tearing down statures is like the deception that you can change the history of the civil war as if never happened.
    this from ignorant people , who live on welfare from cradle to grave and like the Idiots they are can only get mad about their situation and burn their own houses down, or destroy something instead of making a Job , finding a job or actually working for a living, they get the handouts and want more. their leadership is playing them for the fools they really are

  17. avatar Peterk says:

    a specious argument
    The confederacy was not trying to conquer the north. Nazi Germany was trying to conquer and defeat its neighbors.

  18. avatar Wiregrass says:

    My great great grandfather spent the war boiling seawater to extract salt in Apalachicola. I’ve found no evidence that he ever owned slaves. Most of the men fighting that war did not own slaves, they were fighting for their country or homeland as they saw it and sought to do what they believed was the right and honorable cause. We don’t have to agree with that cause to appreciate their courage and sacrifice. And frankly the reason we don’t see statues of Rommel is because the victors write history. The only difference is that in our country after the period known as Reconstruction, the US decided that if they still wanted to call this nation a republic, they had to recognize rights such as freedom of speech in the former enemy states That is when the Democrats put up all the statuary.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      So the statues are physical evidence of our First Amendment rights — proof that a past exists which we did not create, and that this whole America thing is far bigger than our current obsessions — and the progressive left wants to tear them down. Sounds about right. That’s all the reason they’d need.

  19. avatar Alexander says:

    With a certainty of displaying my well justified prejudice and bias, I will postulate that the so called “Hosea L. Martin” of Chicago did not write that letter to the editor. I doubt very much that “Hosea L. Martin” has any clue as to who Erwin Rommel and Erich von Manstein were. In all likelihood, this propaganda piece was written by a White leftist elitist. Another indication of that, is the claim that the Southern States wanted to “violent[ly] overthrow of the U.S. government” – that is a projection of the White elites, most likely in academia. Hispanics that don’t think this way nor do they see the Civil War in those colors. And since we’re at it, I should also point out that while Southern leaders of a 150 year old war that had slaves on both sides are viewed by this liberal “professor” as “terrorists,” that same “educator” sees BLM, antifa, Hamas and Hezbollah as “freedom fighters” and no doubt worships Alinsky and Che in public, and Stalin and Lenin in private.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    Even if it were the right thing to do (no one’s even tried to convince me with “reasons”) I don’t trust a single MF attempting to do it. If you want to petition certain entities, areas, or your federal government, to remove these types of things, then do it peaceably through due process. If you want to do anarchy, we’re going to do my version and I swear on your life you won’t get a chance to beg me to stop.

    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the party is always right.” – George Orwell ,1984

    https://m.9gag.com/gag/aoOPdEm

  21. avatar Rammerjammer says:

    Tear down the monuments to traitorous losers! The South will never rise again! Enjoy your participation trophies while you can broflakes!

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      Awwww…. Look at the little troll…… Run along, and give mommy her ipad back. You’re going to miss nap-time little boy….

      1. avatar Rammerjammer says:

        After a good nap I got mommy’s Ipad back.

        The South still lost right? You guys making America Great Again yet?

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Yeah the history of the Democratic Party is really somethin? Ain’t it?

  22. avatar History Buff says:

    Statues to remove are those of King Charles II, which are in several cities around the U.K. Charles II encouraged the African slave trade and accepted large sums to grant the Royal Adventurers, closely related to the Royal Society, the exclusive rights to the African slave trade. Also, prevent the breeding of King Charles spaniels.

  23. avatar Stoney Man says:

    I think we would all do well to keep the statues up to remind us that Democrats Enslaved Black People.

    #NeverAgain #NeverForget

  24. avatar Shire-man says:

    History doesn’t matter. Nobody pays attention or learns any lessons. Let the Democrats tear down their Klan heroes.

    All statues are a stupid waste of money and space anyway. Just reimburse those who funded their construction when you destroy their property.

  25. avatar Joe R. says:

    The Chitcago Tribune is in bed with, and supports, liberal Democrats (founders of the KKK, and abortionists extraordinaire) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-michael-flynn-kass-0216-20170215-column.html

    They are an FING scourge. Should someone tear their shit down?

  26. avatar LHW says:

    Leave em up and let the snowflakes melt.

  27. avatar Pliablemoose says:

    So…

    Statues of slave owners are next?

  28. avatar GapharmD says:

    No. And if you wanna see it get real. Wait and see how well Stone Mountain will stand.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Don’t forget Mt. Rushmore. Two of the faces were slave owners, and one is an accused racist. From one of the comments above, one could accuse Lincoln of being a racist as well, because he believed in the separation (but equal treatment) of the races, notwithstanding that he was greatly admired by Frederick Douglass.

  29. avatar Nanashi says:

    How about we instead tear down US V. Miller, which was decided by a Klansman?

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Excellent idea.

  30. avatar Swilson says:

    My family has been down South since before there was a USA and they fought for both sides and I’m damn proud of all of ’em.

    I might listen to what the leftists were saying regarding the statues if national harmony and freedom were their actual goals. They don’t want to remove the statues to foster this harmony and heal the nation. They simply want to give a big middle finger to the other side. Hard to defend the statues too, because you are immediately invalidated and devalued as a Klansman or Nazi, instead of a decent American. You can oppose the leftist groups opposed to the statues and not be a Nazi, but unfortunately that is not the picture that is painted.

    These statues have been here for years, the one outside my local courthouse in NC is beautiful. I have never heard of a judge or DA looking out the window at it and then unfairly sentencing a black person. Since the leftist serfs tore the one down in Durham, I haven’t heard of the single mom rate in the black community decrease or the black high school graduation rate increase.

    Harmony and unity are not the objective of this nonsense. It is all a big FU to conservatives in general and southerners in particular.

    1. avatar DaveR says:

      “They don’t want to remove the statues to foster this harmony and heal the nation. They simply want to give a big middle finger to the other side.”

      Who the F is “they”? I want the statues removed and it has nothing to giving the middle finger to anybody. Simply put the statues are leftovers of a huge power play by the good ol’ boys to intimidate black people in the Jim Crow South. They’re not about history, they’re about racist politics.

      1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

        You can “want” in one hand and “shit” in the other….tell me which weighs more. The statues stay….just because they enrage bedwetting snowflakes like you.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I’ve always heard it “Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first.”

      2. avatar Swilson says:

        “They” are the people who work themselves into such a frenzy over how “racist” the country, that they topple a statue in Durham and then start kicking and spitting on it (they even have to gang up on an inanimate object. “They” are the people who quite literally gave the middle finger to a kid (not affiliated with the Klan) who saluted the statue to honor his ancestors and stood shrieking and screaming in his face, and for what?

        But yea, they shouldn’t all be lumped together. I’m sure people like you can come up with a more coherent argument other than “dass raciss” (you haven’t) and not have to lump all of us Southerners together into one big stereotype, which you did, with that tired good ol’ boys crap.

  31. avatar JoeLiberty says:

    Losers should not get participation trophies. Amirite?

  32. avatar jwtaylor says:

    I’m not ok with tearing them down outright, as I do see that as an effort to erase history. But I am ok with moving them out of town squares and into public museums and historical locations where they make sense, such as grave sights and battlegrounds.
    As a Texan, I have to agree with President Sam Houston, who considered my state’s entrance into the Confederacy a mistake, and predicted catastrophe. The old general would be proven right. It wasn’t Texas’ fight.
    As for the rest of the nation, leave it to the decision of the locals, the American thing to do.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      Hear hear

    2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      I rather think of removing them as a lie. They are evidence of what happened and what people thought. R. E. Lee also seems to have been an admirable fellow in many ways – much better than most people, past or present.

    3. avatar Warren says:

      Sam Houston abided by what his mother taught him, and it served him well. JWT, I’m sure you know all about his mother’s letter when she gave him permission to fight against Mexico, with the accompanying gift of a ring with the inscription of “HONOR,” and a musket.

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      Except that Texas went secesh because of all the slave owners there who out voted Houston.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Mark N., One of the interesting things about working in the Capitol is that I got to see and read many of the original source documents. Houston was certainly outvoted by Texas senators, many of whom were not from Texas and still owned property and slaves in the southern states.
        It was then as it is now, people from other states moving here and getting us in trouble.

    5. avatar Joe R. says:

      I think it’s funny (or at least interesting) that there was less of the whole argument either way the closer you got to the “frontier” in America. MO was a who-knows 50/50 split. Oklahoma was a haven for runaway slaves early on and unincorporated Indian country up until the early 1900’s; and it is still some wild ‘mother nature’s going to use you as fertilizer’ kinda country (as I believe most of TX still is).

      It’s not laissez-faire, it’s that existence parses your daily struggle. It’s easy for people to be-equal out here without any other argument or proof needed. It’s all hands, and pull your weight. Their were obvious/vocal/boisterous opinions on both sides, but at the end of the day, existence rubbed elbows with survival enough that most people would not care to side heavily one way or another.

  33. avatar Mad Max says:

    My ancestors fought for the Union in the Civil War and one is the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery. All of the the statues, and especially the ones honoring rank & file Confederate soldiers, should stay in place.

    1. So you would have no objection to statues honoring German generals or North Vietnamese generals?

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        If erected in Germany and in Vietnam. It’s their choice. Rommel would be a good candidate for Germany.

        1. avatar DaveR says:

          The better analogy would be to have the German government erect a statue of Rommel in a Jewish neighborhood,. That’s what most of the Confederate monuments were–symbols of white power in a segregated South.

        2. avatar Paelorian says:

          Yes, Rommel’s service advanced Nazi Germany, but Rommel is widely considered the most honorable of the generals of Nazi Germany. He was not implicated in any war crimes, treated prisoners well to the point of refusing dishonorable orders, and lest anyone forget was ordered to commit suicide by Hitler after being implicated in a plot to assassinate Hitler for his crimes. His record is perhaps too mixed, and his involvement in the plot too marginal and inconclusive, to regard him as a hero, but if my synagogue wanted to honor him I would find it perhaps only slightly objectionable. Lee’s pre-war and especially post-war record should solidify him firmly as an honorable and admirable great American. He was no traitor, he was loyal to his native Virginia. Not that Confederates can fairly be considered traitors in a nation founded by just treason. Lee did much to heal the wounds of the war and for that I believe him to be heroic.

        3. avatar cisco kid says:

          to Paeloria

          To claim Lee was not a traitor is laughable. He worked very hard to divide the U.S. into a multitude of constantly warring States which would have turned the U.S. into a multitude of 3rd world countries.

          Yes Lee eventually did free is own slaves but it was more political than personal and this in no way meant he believed in equal rights for blacks, women, poor whites or any other minorities including Jews by the way. If he was alive today he would have been marching lock step shoulder to shoulder with the despicable White Supremacist Herr Drumpf worshiping Nazi’s at Charlottesville.

          Worshiping false Gods (like Herr Drumpf or General Lee) is nothing new in History by the “self-anointed chosen ones” who simply aren’t.

      2. avatar Alexander says:

        If the statue to Rommel was in Germany or a statue to a great South Vietnamese general (was there one?) in Vietnam, then that should not be a problem. Unless the United States wants to admit that the war of 1861-65 was a war of conquest, then the Southern generals are American, as in the United States, generals. Therefore, their place for their statues is in America.

      3. avatar Hank says:

        Certainly not. What would be wrong with that? You don’t think the British have statues of Cornwallis, Clinton (not billary), and king George? They most certainly do. And they have every right to honor their heritage.

      4. avatar Freeheel says:

        So you would have no problem telling Mexican-Americans in Texas to pack sand and never fly a Mexican flag or build a memorial to Mexican-Americans? After all Mexico is a two time war loser here in Texas. I mean Southern-Americans only lost to America once right?

        Can you even imagine the level of crazy the democrats would rise to if Mexican flags were banned?

        And don’t forget the long list of countries that lost to us or attacked us. France, Canada, England, Canada and England again, Spain, Mexico, Philippines, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Germany again, France (Vichy) again, Japan, Italy, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Russia, and half the Middle East. Should we ban all their flags and displays in this country too? Or is really not about who fought who with this country and it turns out it is just more political correctness Bull hockey.

        1. avatar TJ says:

          Confederate flags etc. are not banned they just shouldn’t fly over government buildings or on public property. Neither do Mexican flags. There is a big difference between BANNED and not being on government property. If you want to pay for and build a statue of Robert E Lee on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY you have every right to. Knock yourself out. But PUBLIC tax dollars shouldn’t go towards it.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Neither do Mexican flags.” Not true. The Mexican flag flies at visitor centers on the Texas border (with other states). It flies along with the Texan flag, the Spanish flag, the French flag, the Confederate flag (the actual Confederate flag, not the stars and bars), and finally the U.S. flag. They are the six flags of sovereign nations that included the territorial limits of Texas at one time or another. Though you are technically correct that the flags aren’t “over” government buildings. They’re in front of them.

          There are also a lot (I’ve only personally seen two) of “Alamo Flags,” alternatively called “1824 Flags” in Texas courthouses.

        3. avatar LR says:

          Ok. I’ll concede that. But the Mexican flag is still not the perceived symbol of a society that bought and sold human beings. Human beings who’s descendents still live here and have to see that garbage idolized by flags and monuments. Monuments to people that fought for a way of life that ripped away children from their parents and sold them. That whipped them mercilessly if they didn’t do as ordered. That beat them and raped them. That treated them like animals. Those monuments are disgusting and disgraceful. Get rid of them. And don’t give me that “forgetting history” bullshit that people love to try to use as an excuse. I live in a northern state. We don’t have confederate monuments and flags and we don’t seem to have any problem remembering the Civil War, which is the darkest and saddest years of this countries history.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “perceived symbol” – interesting word choice.

        5. avatar LR says:

          Yes, perceived, as in, regarded as. Obviously it isn’t in use as the flag of the Confederacy since the Confederacy no longer exists (thank god). So it is regarded or perceived symbolically now.

        6. The Confederacy very much exists in the hearts and minds of free people.
          The line does not divide North and South, Black and White, Rich and Poor, but be certain, there is a division in this country. And we are at war. To think otherwise is to surrender.
          The water is about to boil. Are you going to be cooked or are you going to fight? Those are the only two options.

        7. avatar LR says:

          Not gonna happen.

        8. You have made your choice.

        9. avatar LR says:

          It’s not gonna happen.

  34. avatar Paul53 says:

    Symbols of rebellion, slavery and racism. History books tell it better. Second place trophys.. I don’t see the value!

    1. avatar Richard Baldwin says:

      History? Did you read the history of how the actual veterans of the Civil War got over their differences and marched arm in arm, Confederate and Federal, across their former battlefields in post war reunions? Or how they fought side by side during the Spanish-American War? Or how Union states erected monuments to Confederate soldiers? The statues standing today are a part of our heritage. Our collective history, and yes, pride, should not be subjected to the rash, ill considered, self serving “summary judgement” of anarchy.

      1. avatar DaveR says:

        “The statues standing today are a part of our heritage”

        Where are the statues and monuments to slavery? It’s almost like the same people who vote to put up a statue of Lee would like to forget the evil institution that he fought to defend.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          I grew up in the presence of a number of memorials to Confederate veterans. No one ever told me or taught me what to think of these monuments. No one I personally knew ever explained them as monuments to slavery. I’m now pushing 70 years old. I formed my own opinions. Not once in all that time have I ever thought of them as glorifying slavery. EVER. To me they have been and will always be memorials to bravery, courage and commitment to family and country. No one in history goes through their life with perfect records. You and me included. However, these particular monuments have earned their rightful place in our collective history. Tear them down? Commie much? Or fascist much? Or just punk-assed anti-fa?

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Yep. History of the Democratic Party is pretty dark, eh?

  35. avatar W says:

    ” … but too often what they fought for is ignored.”

    Gotta throw the total ******* BS flag on that one. Need a citation.

  36. avatar JohnnyL says:

    Yeah and black people who were never slaves are fighting white people who were never Nazis over a confederate statue erected by Democrats because Democrats can’t stand their own history anymore…yet somehow it’s Trump’s fault.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      Lol. That about sums it up.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      We have a winner, right here.

    3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Winner, winner chicken dinner!!

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        To Rauol of Bayonne

        Quote———————-Yeah and black people who were never slaves are fighting white people who were never Nazis over a confederate statue erected by Democrats because Democrats can’t stand their own history anymore…yet somehow it’s Trump’s fault.————————————

        Take out your rabid White Racist Ear Plugs. The Trump Nazi’s were carrying torches and screaming epitaphs at the Jewish people of that town.

        At least be man enough to admit what you people are. Modern day Nazi’s.

        1. avatar JohnnyL says:

          Yawn… Another Snowflake is here to preach his liberal agenda….

  37. avatar million says:

    Symbols mean different things to different people. The statues and monuments don’t symbolize slavery to southerners just like the hammer and sickle don’t represent millions starved to death, gulags, and terror to college students.

    Leave them up.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I have to agree. White southerners do not look at these statues today as symbols of undying racism, but instead of symbols of valor, courage, and military prowess in the face of overwhelming odd.s. They are a symbol of Southern spirit and a source of pride. They are symbols of the “War of Northern Aggression,” i.e. the war itself and the battles fought, not icons to past slavery practices and racial hatred. At least this was true when I lived in Louisiana in the ’70s.

      Although the US military is no longer a racist institution, many of its soldiers and officers are Southerners who emulate this warrior ethos.

  38. Would we put up statues of Erwin Rommel? Or Vo Nguyen Giap?

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      On the other hand, should they level Auschwitz and put up condos in it’s place?

      1. avatar henry bowman says:

        Yes. Time to rid us of that weapon the cultural marxists use against us.

      2. avatar CLarson says:

        Now that is a VERY interesting idea.

    2. avatar samuraichatter says:

      How about Tecumseh?

      His bust is not just on public display. It is at the U.S. Naval Academy for crying out loud! If the argument for taking down confederate statues is that they fought against America then you got to get rid of all the native american stuff too.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        +1!!!!

        But that would be racist!! Only white people are allowed to be discriminated against these days.

  39. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The reason the SJW agitators are whining about the statues is because they’re a bunch of pinko commies and they have to convince people that we live in a bad country because people who believe they live in the greatest country ever won’t cry out for radical change.

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      I’ll tell you boys,
      This man is a spy!
      He’s an undercover agent for the FBI!
      And I’ll betcha he even has a Commie Flag
      Tacked up in his garage.

  40. avatar Ralph says:

    After the War ended, Union officers and soldiers gave up their hatred toward Johnny
    Reb and didn’t have a problem with Confederate statues.

    But the little Commie shits running around the streets and their political shot-callers, none of whom had anything to do with the building of this country, they have a grudge? Really?

    They’ll be coming for Washington and Jefferson soon. Jackson is also a marked man. As is any white male.

    I’m beginning to think that half the country is completely nuts and the sane half needs to arm up.

    1. avatar DaveR says:

      “After the War ended, Union officers and soldiers gave up their hatred toward Johnny
      Reb and didn’t have a problem with Confederate statues.”

      Glad to learn that everyone was so happy right after the war. No lingering resentments?–amazing. I would have thought that there might have been some. Oh well, guess I’m wrong.

      If the only people stirring the pot are a bunch of lefty commie pinko do-gooders then that should be a problem, right? How dangerous can snowflakes be after all?.

      1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        A wounded snowflake is still very dangerous…

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      We need to bring back insane asylums and the guys in the white suits.

    3. Let’s remind the little commie shits that Union soldiers killed American Indians.
      Then the can go after all statues. Then maybe we can put an end to this nonsense.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        They also had segregated black units with white officers as well.

        Seems they treated blacks no better than the people they were fighting. They were more racist and vile to blacks than Southerners were!!

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Raoul of Bayonne

          Quote—————————They also had segregated black units with white officers as well.

          Seems they treated blacks no better than the people they were fighting. They were more racist and vile to blacks than Southerners were!!————————————–Quote

          But is was the Northern Government that freed the Slaves. Now lets see you make another racist excuse for the racist South.

  41. avatar dm says:

    I read somewhere, wait till the sjw leftists discover there were books written about these same people. Today monuments are spirited away, tomorrow books get burned, and finally people start disappearing.

    Regardless, who needs to learn from history, it’s not like we will ever repeat it. /so

  42. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    There was a guy on Tucker Carlson arguing for taking down these statues. His reasoning would extend to anyone who was a Confederate soldier, no matter what the monument was for. He also wouldn’t answer whether monuments to Washington should be torn down. He said “we’ll get to Washington later,” perhaps meaning the question.

    I don’t think tearing down these statues has anything to do with the statues or what they represent. I think it is motivated by the same things as every other flash point in the past decade or so. The left wants to tear down the foundations of our society so they can replace it with something else. This means destroying anything that points to a past.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Indeed, recent events seem to be little more than a self righteous manufactured crusade by radical elements in the left. This is all in an attempt to reestablish their relevancy and gain support to fulfill a revisionist objective.

      The dead and disfavored are easy targets to demonize, but, as was so eloquently stated: Where does it stop? After all, none are blameless and without fault.

  43. avatar Smith says:

    No memorials for enemies of my country. If yall dont like it, pack your shit and leave.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      Unintentional irony or a mulligan on the whole Civil War to prevent succession thing? I am confused.

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      “No memorials for enemies of my country. If yall dont like it, pack your shit and leave.” This is what a Confederate would have said about his state in the 1860’s. Ft. Sumter was the “…pack your shit and leave.” part.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      I wonder what the Indians would say about the plot of land you live on? If you’re going to start that train of thought, pack your shit, and give your land up to the local reservation.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Where I live, I can’t give the land back to the Indians that were here first (or at least here when the Spanish showed up to the Americas) because the Indians killed all of them.

  44. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    No

    Next question.

  45. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Stating that The American Civil War was mainly about slavery is an egregious oversimplification of the topic. There were many other factors that at the time were not only current, but also alluded to the founding of the nation.

    During the nation’s founding, the original 13 colonies had a very tentative alliance. With varying and often completely different interests, one of the few unifying factors was their opposition to the British. Even after The War of Independence, the unity of the nation was often frail at best. Many events from this time onward culminated with the secession of the South. While slavery was indeed a factor, it was not the sole one. State rights, opposition towards political and economical domination by the North, and fear of forthcoming irrelevancy played a part.

    In truth, this war would never even have been a war had President Lincoln not adamantly refused to allow the Confederate States of America to exist. The issue of secession under the constitution, was murky at best. At the time there were various opinions regarding this, and even some senators and congressman seeking to create legislation that would outright prohibit such a venture. A couple of years after the war had ended, secession was deemed to be unconstitutional. However, what else would one expect, having won the war, that North would have been in the wrong had such an act been adjudicated to be lawful.

    Now one can say what they will about Lincoln, however, his instincts were keen and his plans for reunification (or what was drafted before his untimely assassination) were quite brilliant. Rather than demonizing the Confederates and thrusting demands of reparations upon them, he allowed/forced them to rejoin the Union as they were. Meaning that the Confederates were allowed to maintain their pride in a sense, and recognized not as enemy combatants, but rather countrymen who had also been through a terrible ordeal.

    Tearing down statues of American(Emphasis on this) figures from the Civil War era, whether Union or Confederate, while disregarding the wishes of the locals, is an affront to the sensibilities and even honor of many countrymen of this nation. It is merely a symptom of a far deeper underlying issue in this country that may very well lead to more strife if such things continue to occur.

    Statues and flags, while only being of wood, metal, stone or cloth, are also symbolic of one’s honor and pride. If a person wants war, then go ahead and attempt to tear down or spit on another’s honor and pride.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      That’s a well made point. The issue of succession was inevitable. The Nullification Crisis is a good example of this.

      Some state at some point was bound to attempt to leave the Union. The Union would only have two choices at that point. Allow it or fight it. The Civil War didn’t really even answer the question. The only question it answered was could the Union force the Confederacy back into the Union. And I don’t put much faith in Texas v. White.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        This one appreciates the compliment and further points/information given by TX_Lawyer. He sums up the concept in a much more succinct way than was initially done by Esoteric Inanity.

        The Nullification Crisis is an excellent example of one such post Revolutionary War event that very well could have precipitated into civil war. With shame, this one must admit that he was not familiar with the event and had to read up on it. Very enlightening and useful knowledge.

        Regarding Texas Vs White and the legalities of secession, Esoteric Inanity is not overly familiar with all of the finer details of the case. However, with what he does know, he would have to agree that the arguments and details were vague in regard to the concept of the original “Union” of autonomous colonies during the country’s founding.

        1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

          Illeism makes me ill…

        2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Amusing pun, it was esoterically ironic. This one approves.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Give it a read in you’re spare time if you don’t have anything better to do. It’s not a very long case. Texas v. White, 74 US 700.

        4. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Thanks for the tip, this one will have to do that.

    2. avatar DaveR says:

      “Stating that The American Civil War was mainly about slavery is an egregious oversimplification of the topic. There were many other factors that at the time were not only current, but also alluded to the founding of the nation.”

      Well you should read the articles of seccession from some of the Confederate States. Here, let me start you off with the first two sentences from Mississippi’s Declaration of Secession:

      “In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
      Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. ”

      This role of slavery is also stated very explicitly in those of South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama

      Still in denial? Thhen how about the Cornerstone Speech of the CSA’s Vice president in 1861:

      “The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”

      Pretty hard to deny that language, eh?

      Fact is the CW was the direct consequence of the Confederacy seeking to defend slavery. Hide your head in the sand all you like, but the reality of history was that the South rebelled because of slavery.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I’d say the main reason the South seceded was slavery. The Civil War was about whether or not the could secede, regardless of the reason. As Justice Grier said, secession “was the sovereign act of a sovereign State, and the verdict on the trial of this question, ‘by battle,’ as to her right to secede, has been against her.”

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          Wouldn’t the bottom-line reason for the succession of the South be money?

          Wasn’t slavery essential to the economic survival of the South?

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “It’s the economy, stupid” is almost always a defensible position in arguments as to why political things happened the way they did. It’s not always right, but it’s really hard to prove it isn’t.

      2. avatar Sean Mallory says:

        The war would have never happened if the Yankee trash had not invaded the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America.

        1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

          You lost. Get over it.

      3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Esoteric Inanity would kindly ask that DaveR re-read his quoted portion of this one’s comment. After which, evaluate as to whether or not that was the section that he wished to contest. If in the affirmative, then please refer to TX_Lawyer’s comment above (As it is stated much more precise and coherently than Esoteric Inanity can typically articulate).

        Also much appreciation for the affirmation that slavery played a part in the Southern states decision to secede from the Union. On this there is consensus, although the hostilities are unwarranted.

        Nonetheless, cheers.

        1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

          Esoteric Insanity likes referring to himself in the third person, aka Illeism.

          Illeism is literary device used either to convey humility, or a sense of self-importance.

          Take yer pick.

        2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Very good, it is rare that Esoteric Inanity encounters one versed in the stylistic device of illeism. This one , however, takes it beyond the typical scope and refers to others in the third person as well.

          “Illeism is a literary device used either to convey humility, or a sense of self-importance.

          Take yer pick.”

          Esoteric Inanity would more than likely be seen as an eccentric and slightly flamboyant individual, rather than being viewed as humble. While some, or perhaps many, may view him as self absorbed, he doesn’t believe this to be typically true. After all, what truly self-important person would go by a name that can be rephrased as cryptic nonsense?

          Perhaps this one can offer a third motive. While not making any first or second person references, conversations tend to be less personal and not nearly as likely to cause discontent. Ideally a productive dialogue should more be easily had, and the only thing at issue are points and counterpoints, not whether or not IdahoBoy’s dad can beat up Esoteric Inanity’s dad. Besides, the oddity of such a literary device, tends to fit both the name and the person quite well.

          This one appreciates the engagement and good natured humor.

    3. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      Higher life forms don’t believe in the magical power of inanimate objects. Go ahead and spit.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        “Higher life forms don’t believe in the magical power of inanimate objects. Go ahead and spit.”

        It is not this one’s intention to perform a keyboard psychoanalysis, but he finds IdahoBoy’s comment intriguing.

        If his screen name is any indication, then logically, one can assume that IdahoBoy either grew up or currently resides in Idaho and is male (Potentially all of the above, if none of the above, then the following screed will be as misplaced as the name). If this is the case then it is quite likely that he is either a member of the majority religion of the state or knows somebody that is. Granted the mention of “higher life forms” and characterization of what some consider to be sacrosanct as “magical powers”, one may assume IdahoBoy to alternatively be an atheist or agnostic. However, this isn’t truly relevant as atheists have empathy like anybody else, regarding agnostics, this one doesn’t know (Merely a joke based on the principles of the agnostic). Now that the preamble has been finished, onto the premise of the question.

        The majority religion of Idaho and Utah, while having many remarkable and decent individuals, also has many inherent oddities that draw much criticism and mockery from outsiders. Such things include their lavish temples, doctrines entailing how mere men may become divinities, proxy baptisms for the long departed (Including holocaust victims and ostensibly their Nazi murderers) and the very infamous sacred temple garments. On occasion, those that disagree with said religion tend to protest outside its institutions by desecrating these garments.

        Such displays evidently causes great discomfort to the religion’s adherents. Now Esoteric Inanity finds these beliefs to be rather strange and unnecessary. However, so long as such creeds fail to affect him, he will continue to give his fellow countrymen the very same respect and consideration that most afford him. Now, would IdahoBoy regard these people as not being “higher life forms” because they “believe in the magical power of inanimate objects”? Perhaps he would “go ahead and spit” on their sensibilities? Unity is not achieved when countrymen deride each other’s honor.

        In closing Esoteric Inanity thanks IdahoBoy for the dialogue and in no way was this meant to impugn his character or honor, but rather provide a juxtaposition with a scenario involving people a little more close to home.

    4. avatar cisco kid says:

      To Esoteric Insanity

      Quote———————-During the nation’s founding, the original 13 colonies had a very tentative alliance. With varying and often completely different interests, one of the few unifying factors was their opposition to the British. ———————-quote

      100 per cent wrong. The majority of Americans back then were very Conservative and were against breaking with the British rather it was the greed monger American Merchants who were against paying taxes to the British Empire that started the war through the propaganda of Thomas Payne who was not even a citizen but a rabble rouser. They only succeeded in biting off the hand that was feeding them as the Americans were prospering under British rule and the revolution set the country back decades coupled with the war of 1812 that was also a disaster economically as well.

      Quote——————– this war would never even have been a war had President Lincoln not adamantly refused to allow the Confederate States of America to exist. —————–quote
      Lincoln had no choice as a nation divided cannot stand and he new that America would disentegrate into many warring States and we would have ended up living in a multitude of 3rd world countries.

      ­

      1. quote————————Tearing down statues of American(Emphasis on this) figures from the Civil War era, whether Union or Confederate, while disregarding the wishes of the locals, is an affront to the sensibilities and even honor of many countrymen of this nation. It is merely a symptom of a far deeper underlying issue in this country that may very well lead to more strife if such things continue to occur. ——————quote

      The locals you refer to are white minorities who are still rabidly racist and in every town, city and village there live many blacks whose ancestors were victims of slavery and to them these statues of slaver’s and traitors are highly offensive.

      Quote——————Statues and flags, while only being of wood, metal, stone or cloth, are also symbolic of one’s honor and pride. If a person wants war, then go ahead and attempt to tear down or spit on another’s honor and pride.——————quote

      The Statues represent rampant racism and honoring traitors who would have destroyed the great country of the U.S.A.

  46. avatar dph says:

    Well, after they’re done tearing down the statues they’ll want to rename a bunch of Army bases. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/17/no-plans-change-names-bases-honoring-confederate-generals.html
    And then they’ll want to tear up anything written by the slave owner scum who started this country, you know, like the Constitution, BORs, etc. I mean after all, they were slave owners and terrorists, just ask someone from English side.

  47. avatar Hank says:

    Guess we should burn the history books next! While we wear all black uniforms and beat our opponents!!! That’ll really make us look not like nazis!!! Right!? Right!?

  48. avatar Dcert says:

    Guy can pen an article but failed on his research out of the two German examples he pulled out of his rectal region… One actually is remembered fondly in Germany. Field Marshall Rommel has a museum dedicated to him in UHLM.

  49. avatar Mike Betts says:

    For one thing, I’m not at al pleased at seeing statuary of American veterans vandalized, either by governments or gangs of “social justice warriors”. If you are confused about the term “American veterans”, then perhaps you should do a bit of study and you’ll find that by an Act of the Congress of the United States of America, former Confederate soldiers are considered to be “veterans of the United States military” and are entitled to be buried in U.S. veterans’ cemeteries, government headstones, and every other honor and amenity due to all American veterans. That would also include pension payments to the wives and children of Confederate veterans. Believe it or not, as of 2012 there were two still living and collecting pension benefits.

    Also, I couldn’t find mention of a statue of Erwin Rommel located in Germany but there is a small museum dedicated to him in Herrlingen, Germany near where he lived in Ulm. The Germans also commemorate him with a service at his graveside every year. The Panzer Museum in Munster has a section dedicated to him which includes his death mask (or at least a copy of it). There is also a Rommel museum in Mersa Matruh, Egypt.

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      “Museum” is the key word here.

      Confederate statues belong in museums, where they can be displayed in historical context with other information about the civil war and slavery to put the Confederacy into proper perspective.

  50. avatar Pat Pending says:

    Sounds like we’re starting a revolution about our previous revolution. Only in America!

    In Columbus New Mexico, USA, there’s a memorial for Pancho Villa who came across the border with his “soldiers” and shot up the town. He was the first person to invade the contiguous United States! At least since the white men arrived from Europe.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      War of 1812. Yeah, technically white men arriving from Europe, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean that.

  51. avatar samuraichatter says:

    “This makes Lee and Jackson and the armies they led terrorists”

    No it makes them enemy combatants. Terrorists don’t don uniforms (complete rank and insignia) and then lead armies in the hopes of securing a nation of their own.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The key feature of terrorism is the targeting of civilians. That makes men like Sherman the terrorists of the Civil War.

  52. avatar Jeff says:

    Leave it up to the individual communities, not some asshole bused in from out of state. If the local community as a whole wants it removed, it’s up to their elected officials to remove them, else leave them alone. If the elected officials won’t respond to the wishes of the majority of the community, that’s what elections are for.

  53. avatar rt66paul says:

    The states that wanted to suceed were not trying to overthrow the US government, any more than Brexit was trying to overthrow the EU. States back then were pretty much thier own countries. The fed had little say, until the northern states wnated control.

  54. avatar Sean Mallory says:

    The Confederate soldiers fought to defend their homes and nation from invasion by a hostile power.

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      And what was everybody saying to people like me in November of last year?

      “You lost. Get over it.”

  55. avatar Steelbones says:

    The northern states pushed the federal government to impose a large tariff on all machinery, farm implements and machine parts not manufactured in the northern industrial US. The agricultural South bought all of its manufactured products, including its farm implements, from England, its biggest trading partner, exchanging Southern cotton and tobacco for English manufactured goods. The new Federally-imposed tariffs dramatically increased the cost of manufactured goods in the South and the cost of cotton and tobacco production, beginning a southern economic recession. This was the major cause of the war, the increase in Federal government control over the economies of the states, mostly impacting the Southern states. Slavery itself had never been a big issue in the North. The institution of slavery was already being phased out as it became less cost-effective with the rapid introduction of more modern agricultural methods like the cotton-gin and early steam-powered farming machines. Slavery would have died of its own accord within the decade. The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation was an after-thought as the war became more and more unpopular in the North, its young men dying by the tens or thousands, draft-riots taking place in New York and other northern cities. Lincoln issued the Proclamation in order to re-portray the war as a moral issue in order to gain more public support. Economics and the extension of Federalism was the true cause, slavery was a very secondary minor issue. Economics, not skin-color. (Oh, b/t/w… A bit of trivia. In Mississippi at the outset of the war, 24% of all slaves in the state were owned by Black plantation owners, who also generously contributed to the South’s war effor

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      The cotton-gin did more to invigorate slavery than anything else of it’s time, because it made mass production of cotton practical. It used to be that processing cotton was the bottleneck, not picking it. Once the cotton-gin arrived, the bottleneck was picking, and that was easily solved with slaves.

  56. avatar Evey259 says:

    I’d like to put up a monument at Ground Zero commemorating the 19 heroic freedom fighters who died on that fateful day. Though divisions of ideology may persist, it would be stupid not to remember history. Otherwise, we’ll repeat it all over again.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Then take heart, for if the Jihadis ever take NYC, such a monument will likely come to fruition.

  57. avatar Larry Cowden says:

    I also had family on both sides that fought with honor for what they believed in. None of them owned slaves. They fought for their families, their businesses, against aggression from the North, their lands, and freedom to decide their future. The statues must stand! There is no right for any one extremist group to demand their removal based solely on their say! To those that continue to demand their removal, pack sand!
    You never served this country. Will never serve it. Your family never served. You haven’t a clue as to the sacrifice these men made for this Nation! Hell, you probably don’t even know your family’s history. This wasn’t just white against white. It was also blacks against black! Although no one wants to acknowledge that! As for your whimpering cries of Fascism, Nazism, White Supremacy, stuff it! You don’t even know what those words mean, much less their definition!

  58. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

    The modern left has hated history since it’s creation in the late 1800s. Most of the people who hate the statues were educated under the book, “A people’s history of the United States” by Howard Zinn. In his book Mr. Zinn goes on and on using farcical leftists “truth speak” to every major event in the history of the United States. His view is one that follows the Marxist-Leninist view of history with the inevitable tide flowing towards a communist system. The end result of that book is what we are seeing here today with the destruction of our nations history. Most of the Antifa leftist idiots were brainwashed by teachers in the last twenty years who were themselves brainwashed by the group think teachers and professors of the 1960s. What we are seeing today is the end result of fifty years of anti American teaching.
    For those of you who are still reading this long winded post and know your history, anyone who has read Shelby Foote’s trilogy on the civil war will quickly understand why the southern soldiers loved Lee, Jackson, and other now suddenly hated figures of the south. Lee himself knew that if he did not surrender at Appomattox the nation would have had bloody guerrilla war for another fifty years. Lee however knew his place and moved his own pride and genius out of the way. We should keep statues up to him for that reason alone if nothing else although I could give you 100 other reasons on why he is person we should respect. “God disposes, this ought to satisfy us.” Robert E Lee

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “The modern left has hated history since it’s creation in the late 1800s.” At first, I though “it’s” was referring to history. I was a bit confused.

    2. avatar Jack says:

      Haha, WHAT? That book actually tells the truth, and has nothing to do with communism you ignorant buffoon.

      1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

        Nice, call me names but ignore the reality of the facts. So sad that your government school has taught you to argue through insults. Zinn was a confirmed member of the communist party and he was investigated by the FBI. Look it up.

  59. avatar barnbwt says:

    Only just *slightly* beyond the scope of anything having to do with firearms, or even their politics/culture, wouldn’t you think? I guess the response to the actually-self-defense-related antifa article from earlier was just too juicy to not squeeze for a few more clicks…

  60. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    Don’t destroy the statues. Destroy the glamour and romance behind the statues.

    Move them into museums, where they can be displayed with a sense of historical perspective, along with examples of life under slavery.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      This is perhaps, a very pragmatic solution. However, deep wounds take time to heal, and some, while old, will never mend when they are constantly being reopened.

      Events such as those of 1861-1865 are quite complex and controversial (As IdahoBoy no doubt is aware). Such things are subjective to an individual when it comes to interpretation, for who is it that always fights on the side of angels?

      Providing as close to an objective account as possible, would indeed be preferable. How to go about this, this one does not know, but respect for fellow countrymen should be taken into consideration.

  61. avatar Warlocc says:

    While I don’t see what this has to do with guns, I can say… I don’t think they should be left up as monuments, really. That said, they shouldn’t be getting vandalized or destroyed. They should be in museums or historical locations as reminders of our mistakes, so we won’t repeat ’em.

  62. avatar Alexander says:

    Already happened. A new mosque had been built there. Celebrated by the Left.

  63. The wife and I built a retaining wall in our front yard. I incorporated seven columns in the structure. Three of them have post lights and three have planters. I told my wife to save one for a statue. I couldn’t find anything but Greek replicas or wood nymphs. I want a sentry with a Kentucky long gun. Nobody replicates them.
    Maybe I should just go steal an original since that has become acceptable.

  64. avatar little horn says:

    they do draw a strong comparison to the Nazi Generals and Confederate Generals. i think tearing down a few may be appropriate but just like the woman gay label “lesbian” they are never satisfied. why is it that gay women get a special designation as “lesbian” were as gay men are just gay???
    a woman already went on air saying she thinks Washington and Jefferson should both be torn down. That is just ludicrous.

  65. avatar Big Kahuna says:

    My great-grandfather fought in the Union Army. He was captured during the Wilderness Battle and interred in Andersonville prison (he survived). The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. To say otherwise is pure B.S., no two ways about it.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      That’s an overly simplistic view of things. I can point to contemporary documents stating that the war was fought over states’ right to secede.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        To Tx
        quote—————————–That’s an overly simplistic view of things. I can point to contemporary documents stating that the war was fought over states’ right to secede———————————–

        You did not finish the sentence to be Historically correct. The Right to Secede “so they could continue to enslave other human beings”. My College History professor once responded to a similar statement from another person of your ilk and I will quote him now. ” If you passed any History Classes you shouldn’t have”.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The reason for secession is irrelevant as to whether or not a state has that right. If it was agreed upon that a state had the right to secede, the war would not have been fought, regardless of slavery. The central question of the Civil War is the right to secession. The primary motivator for secession probably was slavery. To say that the Civil War was fought over the right of secession is not pure BS. To say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is BS. To say that the North fought the Civil War to end slavery is BS because the North fought to preserve the Union at any cost (including the cost of keeping slavery around).

          I’ve passed every history class I’ve taken because I knew the correct answers to the questions asked.

        2. avatar cisco kid says:

          Quote—————————————I’ve passed every history class I’ve taken because I knew the correct answers to the questions asked.——————————————-Quote

          Your the A-typical Southern Racist from the most Racist State on the Planet, Texas. You look at History through your Racist colored glasses making every excuse imaginable to avoid the stark naked truth. The Slavery issue between the North and the South was brewing for years before the war with the Racist South foaming at the mouth over such things as the underground railway. It was amazing the war between the States did not happen sooner than it did.

          The South erroneously thought that cheap slave labor would keep them rolling in money for generations to come while ignoring the technical innovations in farming that were being developed at an ever quickening pace. Back then as is also true today the “Hillbilly” could not see the “forest for the trees” and fought a war that they would have lost even if the Civil war had never happened.

          The South also had a paranoia that if the Slaves were freed they would lose their white privilege as well and this valid point is often over looked and the one and only emphasis is slavery for economic gain not the corresponding social changes that would come by freeing the slaves. The South kept on fighting to keep black people enslaved economically, politically and culturally long after the Civil War was over. So to say slavery was not the central point of the Civil War is ludicrous to all but the mad dog Southern Racist that is every bit a s racist today as he was back then, hence the fanatical attachment to racist Confederate Monuments which they worship as “the people who tried to protected us from the animal like “N” people. Today they simply refer to them “as the other”. The only thing that has changed is the nomenclature not the racism, its still there and Charlottesville proved it beyond all doubt. Hitler did not have to invent Nazism, the American South invented Nazism for him and continues to keep Nazism alive to this very day. Hitler missed his chance in history as he should have dedicated a statue to Robert E. Lee and when he needed more fiends to operate the gas chambers he should have imported Texans, they all would have loved Hitler and been even more fanatical than Hitler’s SS when it came to killing all minorities.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Catamite.

        4. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Tex the slave master.

          Quote——————–Catamite.——————————Quote

          I never thought you would admit to being one. (got to you didn’t I)

        5. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “Hitler did not have to invent Nazism, the American South invented Nazism for him and continues to keep Nazism alive to this very day.”

          Conflating a confederacy with a totalitarian dictatorial regime is pure sophistry. What does cisco kid’s professor have to say about his folly: “If you passed any History Classes you shouldn’t have”.

        6. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Esoteric

          quote———————————Hitler did not have to invent Nazism, the American South invented Nazism for him and continues to keep Nazism alive to this very day.”

          Conflating a confederacy with a totalitarian dictatorial regime is pure sophistry. What does cisco kid’s professor have to say about his folly: “If you passed any History Classes you shouldn’t have”.
          ——————————————–quote

          Racism is not confined to dictatorships and the U.S. is a shining example of racism run rampant back then and even in the 21st Century. Go back to school you flunked History Classes.

        7. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Cisco Kid. Can I guess that you were “educated” using Howard Zinn? Most of your arguments are quickly recognized as coming from that confirmed communist. (investigated by the FBI) So sad that we now have two generations of students who have now been drinking the cool-aid of Zinn, with no end to the ignorance in sight. Go troll under another bridge, or how about you just read a little Shelby Foote and get back to us.

        8. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “Racism is not confined to dictatorships and the U.S. is a shining example of racism run rampant back then and even in the 21st Century. Go back to school you flunked History Classes.”

          A grand conspiracy then, between the CSoA, Nazi Germany and the modern U.S., all in an effort to perpetuate Racism. Right?

          Yeah somebody needs a remedial history course, because such inanity is straight out of a fairy tale.

  66. avatar cisco kid says:

    Most of the Civil War Statues were put up in the 50’s and 60’s to intimidate and terrorize Blacks who were demanding the right to vote, the right to attend the school of their choice , the right to eat at the restaurant of their choice, the right to drink out of “white only fountain”, the right to sit at the front of a bus.

    The Confederates were traitors to the U.S. and if they had succeeded the U.S. today would be a place of many warring States and be 50 Third world countries.

    The Confederate Statutes are not needed to teach history as if they were then we would erect statues to Adolf Hitler or Lee Harvey Oswald. Rather they are a rallying point for Racists, Herr Trumps Nazi Hordes, and White Supremacists who want White Privilege and White Power restored as the law of the land. They look at equal rights of all people in the U.S. as a threat to their former Racist ways of life as they view all minorities, immigrants, refugees and other religions as “the other” who will again destroy their way of life and their white privilege.

    Herr Trump is a son of former immigrants and his own mother was an illegal immigrant. Two of his wives were immigrants and under his new policy they would never have been admitted into the U.S. Herr Trump tried to hide his German ancestry for years. Other Racists like Rafael Cruz is also a rabid racist probably because he was chastised because he was born in Canada and his Father was Latino. Bothe Men compensate by posing as fanatical patriots when in reality they stand for everything America has fought against which is Dictatorships, mass murder of minorities, bigotry, intolerance of other religions, and hatred of immigrants and refugees. Rafael even refused to meet with American Muslims during his sordid run for the Presidency.

    In short the Confederate Statues are monuments to Racists, Traitors, Bigots and worshiping and rallying points for the same type of modern day Scum.

    Its interesting to note that after the Civil War thousands of these Monsters emigrated to South America where they bought new Indian Slaves and started new Plantations and their descendants are still there to this very day and still have celebrations each year celebrating their depraved Ancestors lives and the American Civil war. Its too bad all of them did not leave back then as the people that stayed behind are still a big problem for the U.S. as they do not believe in paying taxes, do not believe in equal rights for all and elect each year the very people who prevent them from increasing their quality of life through higher wages, a National Health Care System, Affordable Education for their children, keeping the corrupt gerrymandering and Electoral College, and lifetime memberships in Congress which all make a complete mockery of Democracy. And last but not least support squandering of their miserly tax dollars on more wars of rape, conquest and pillage. That is exactly why they have earned the title “Hillbillies”.

    Of course things are changing. In another 20 to 30 years the U.S. will be bilingual and Latino’s will dominate Government as already 20 per cent of Floridians do not speak any English at all and have their own Cable TV Stations in Spanish, their own Spanish radio stations and in many areas if you do not speak Spanish you cannot be hired. Perhaps in another 30 years some of the Whites will be going back home to Europe from which they came and the rest will simply be absorbed into the Latino populations which are now ever expanding.

    As Johnny Carson said before he died, “nothing lasts forever” and that includes one race dominating a country and its politics. Just as the English conquered the American Indians and replaced them and they in turn were replaced by the German Immigrants who flooded the American landscape,now the Whites are being replaced by the Latino’s. Much the same happened in Europe as the Romans who dominated Europe were replaced by invading Slavs and Germanic Barbarian invading hordes who now today are being replaced by Muslims who by the way were originally invited into Germany in the 1970’s because Germany did not have enough workers to populate their job forces which is what is happening in the U.S. with Latino workers taking jobs no Americans want.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Brings to mind something about taking off and nuking the entire post above from orbit. Only way to be sure…………

      1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

        +1

  67. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Just my two cents as a black american gun owner.
    Leave the statues up. Taking them down is a process that is trying to stop teaching the truth and replace it was historical lies. This is just a distraction from real problems in our society. Like how the Welfare Industrial Complex is destroying liberty in our country.
    Here is some civil wear history that is not taught.

    Apparently some Jews thought slavery was a good idea. Just like some blacks call you a racist for speaking the truth, so some jews will call you an anti-Semite for speaking the truth about pro-slavery jews.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/books/when-general-grant-expelled-the-jews-by-jonathan-d-sarna.html?mcubz=0

    Did you know that it was Jewish expertise, in financial management, that financed the southern confederacy????
    There are many web pages out there, created by proud jewish southerners. Proud of their families confederate army history. I first found Robert Rosen’s book “Jewish Confederates”, in a civil war museum in Virginia over 15 years ago.

    https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Confederates-NS-Robert-Rosen/dp/1570033633

    I don’t care who gets their feelings hurt. Teach the truth. All the people who want the statues to come down are against the second amendment, and the rest of the Bill Of Rights. They are communists.

    1. avatar TJ says:

      As far as Jews financing the Confederacy, that may be true and so what if it is. The rest of your comment ? Complete and total bullshit.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        TJ
        So what if it was national socialists who enslaved jews.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Im glad you came out of the closet by supporting the Welfare Industrial Complex that is destroying the black inner city family.
        You are just as dangerous as the people who want to destroy public property, (statues) you are like the national socialists and the international socialists.

        1. avatar TJ says:

          You don’t know jack shit about me. So go fuck yourself.

  68. avatar Karmen says:

    Is the removal of these statues not a means of removing our history? what is mean is that those statues are a reminder of where we came from as a country. Good or bad, that is our history. removal of the statues to me is putting blinders on and refusing to acknowledge the past for what is was. And as far as i recall from my history class is a good quote, “those who don’t know the past are doomed to repeat it in the future.” So i think they should stay up!!

    1. avatar T Bone says:

      No, it is not a means of removing our history. You think statutes and monuments is the ONLY way to remember history. That’s absurd. There are no Nazi statutes in Germany. Have the Germans or the rest of the world forgotten about them. NO.

    2. avatar LR says:

      Do you think statues is the only way of remembering our history ? There are no monuments to the Nazis but nobody seems to have any problem remembering them. Saying it is a part of our history that should not be forgotten is a LAME excuse for keeping up monuments that to a very large part of our countries people represents them being treated as not humans. They were bought and sold like animals. Children ripped away from parents and sold. They were beaten and raped. Forced to work or be whipped mercilessly or just killed after they were no longer able to work. Ya, let’s erect monuments to the people who fought to retain that. Those monuments are a disgrace and an embarrassment to this country.

  69. avatar Karmen says:

    That’s funny. I never said anywhere in my post that statues are the only way to remember history. I have another question. if those statues were put up and they were in opposition of slavery, would they still be taken down? Are those monuments less important than the ones that oppose slavery? Have we forgotten everything else these people did?

    1. avatar TJ says:

      You do agree that slavery was horrible right ? Human beings being bought and sold as property. Baby’s taken from there mothers arms and sold. They were beaten and raped. Whipped mercilessly. That’s what these men were fighting to preserve. You get it right ?

      1. What the fuck makes you belive that men of the South would fight to preserve such atrocities?
        This is why you have to know about the big lie that the war was over the issue of slavery. Slavery was 100% legal when the war broke out so why start one over something you already have?

        1. avatar TJ says:

          You are the one believing the lie that it was not about slavery. Read the articles of secession. Slavery is the first and foremost issue written in all of them.

        2. Show me the proposed legislation to end slavery.

        3. avatar Karmen says:

          Everyone knows slavery was horrible. No-one is denying that. Slavery is one piece of a much bigger picture reguarding these monuments, not the whole picture. Those monuments are about a lot more than slavery.

        4. avatar TJ says:

          Every hear of the Emancipation Proclomation ?

        5. Oh yeah! That started the war. Wait. When did Lincoln write that?

        6. avatar TJ says:

          I never said it started the war. Look, at the root of the Civil War was slavery. Period. End of story. You can try to rationalize as much other bull shit as you want. If there was no slavery there would have been no Civil War. Have a nice day.

        7. It was implied. How stupid are you?

        8. avatar TJ says:

          So now you can read minds ? I never said it. Never meant to imply it. You just keep on believing what you WANT to believe. Regardless of the truth.

        9. No dipshit. It was implied in the context of the conversation.
          You said the Civil War was fought because the South wanted to keep slavery legal. I said show me legislation that was proposed that would abolish slavery.
          At this point we are still debating the impetus of the war.
          You absurdly brought up the Emancipation Proclamation. I know it is hard for you to focus, but try to keep things relevant. We are still talking about the main cause of the war. And slavery wasn’t it.
          If it was, why did three Union states remain so during the war?

        10. avatar TJ says:

          Ah, you want to play the name calling game. I’ll play along. Go fuck yourself ASSHOLE.

        11. At least I included facts in my reply.

  70. avatar TJ says:

    Tell that to the descendants of slaves. Tell that to black Americans. If you were black you would HATE those monuments with every fiber of your being.

    1. Tell that to the 40% of blacks that don’t care.
      If it was such a racial issue, why didn’t we have this fight in 8 years of our first black president?

    2. avatar Alexander says:

      That depends on how big of chip you decide to carry on your shoulder. I am white, but my ancestors were slaves until 1861. They were owned, bought and sold, by other whites, but that did not make the slavery any more palatable. However, I do not have nervous breakdowns or fits of hatred when I see monuments to the czars or nobles of that period who are famous for other reasons than just having slaves.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email