Should Confederate War Memorials/Statues Be Abolished?

DHB8bkLUAAALkZ0.jpg



Today is just like all the phony baloney polls tony was spreading on here for months.
The fake news is full of "white supremecist violence' rally.

But everyone that isn't a dull minded nitwit can see that the right was doing nothing but exercising their constitutional right to assemble, and the masked, hooded, snowflake criminal, antifa thugs on the left were initiating the violence.

Fake news everywhere and it will not go unnoticed. The ignorant will assume that since the news is fixed in the favor of the violent criminals today the criminals won. But wait till the elections. More white people every day are going to begin voting the proper way.

Thank you antifa and google and especially to the lying journalists.
 
newwurldmn said:
But the reality is that those who cling to these monuments do it to cling to the heritage of black oppression.
More...
The reality is that anyone who clings to (or despises) any monument is just plain fucking stupid and they need to get on with living their own lives and stop worrying about useless shit that doesn't matter. Statues are for pigeons to shit on.
 
Tony Stark said:
I am aware,which is why I also listed the Thirteenth Amendment which he fought for.
More...


Your making stuff up. What's new.

There is no record whatsoever of Lincoln using any influence of his office to try to get the 13th passed. None. That's according to the preeminent Lincoln scholar at Harvard.

But since you brought up the 13th ammendment, it actually does have a very interesting history.

It was about the cost of labor and the south's perceived advantage, not setting people free. Don't believe it?

"When debating the 13th amendment, many in Congress were not thinking of slaves, but rather white labor, as Senator Henry Wilson said, "The same influences that go to keep down and crush down the rights of the poor black man bear down and oppress the poor white laboring man." [2] Senator Richard Yates of Illinois was much blunter, stating that he had "never had the negro on the brain" [3] when discussing the amendment."
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/convictleasesystem.html#.WY-hB1WGOM8


Lincoln detested blacks, he never fought the war to free them, he still wanted them deported after the war, he never fought to get the 13th passed, he only used the emancipation proclamation as a gimmick because the north was in danger of losing the war, and the northern congressmen passed the 13th ammendment because they wanted to take away the labor cost advantage the south had, not because they wanted to free the slaves.

History.
 
fhl said:
Your making stuff up. What's new.

There is no record whatsoever of Lincoln using any influence of his office to try to get the 13th passed. None. That's according to the preeminent Lincoln scholar at Harvard.

But since you brought up the 13th ammendment, it actually does have a very interesting history.

It was about the cost of labor and the south's perceived advantage, not setting people free. Don't believe it?

"When debating the 13th amendment, many in Congress were not thinking of slaves, but rather white labor, as Senator Henry Wilson said, "The same influences that go to keep down and crush down the rights of the poor black man bear down and oppress the poor white laboring man." [2] Senator Richard Yates of Illinois was much blunter, stating that he had "never had the negro on the brain" [3] when discussing the amendment."
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/convictleasesystem.html#.WY-hB1WGOM8


Lincoln detested blacks, he never fought the war to free them, he still wanted them deported after the war, he never fought to get the 13th passed, he only used the emancipation proclamation as a gimmick because the north was in danger of losing the war, and the northern congressmen passed the 13th ammendment because they wanted to take away the labor cost advantage the south had, not because they wanted to free the slaves.

History.
More...

Abraham Lincoln
State of the Union 1864 - 6 December 1864

At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but in intervening election shows almost certainly that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now for the first time heard upon the question. In a great national crisis like ours unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable--almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union, and among the means to secure that end such will, through the election, is most dearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment.-Abraham Lincoln









http://www.history.com/news/congress-passes-13th-amendment-150-years-ago

That summer, Lincoln’s position on the 13th Amendment continued to evolve. At his party’s convention, he pushed for a Republican platform that called for slavery’s “utter and complete extirpation,” and in accepting the nomination he for the first time called for a federal amendment banning slavery as “a fitting, and necessary conclusion” to the war.


Emboldened by the 1864 election that not only returned him to the White House but increased his party’s seats in Congress, Lincoln threw himself behind the effort to pass the amendment. In his annual message to legislators in December 1864, Lincoln made clear that he had no intention of waiting for the inauguration of the new Congress in March. “The next Congress will pass the measure if this does not,” he wrote. “May we not agree that the sooner the better?”


Although it wasn’t legally necessary, Lincoln affixed his signature to the engrossed copy of the amendment the following day. That night, a jubilant crowd led by a brass band gathered by torchlight outside the White House and raised a great cheer when Lincoln’s lanky frame appeared in a central upper window of the portico. The president leaned outside and told his supporters that slavery had caused the Civil War and must be expunged so that it would never tear apart the country again. “This amendment is a king’s cure for all the evils,” he said. “It winds the whole thing up.” Before he left, Lincoln congratulated the country “upon this great moral victory.”







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirt...States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification


President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid after the war. He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[39][40] He had remained outwardly neutral on the amendment because he considered it politically too dangerous.[41] Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[42][43] After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech: "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46]



Lincoln instructed Secretary of State William H. Seward, Representative John B. Alley and others to procure votes by any means necessary, and they promised government posts and campaign contributions to outgoing Democrats willing to switch sides.[47][48] Seward had a large fund for direct bribes. Ashley, who reintroduced the measure into the House, also lobbied several Democrats to vote in favor of the measure.[49] Representative Thaddeus Stevens commented later that "the greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America"; however, Lincoln's precise role in making deals for votes remains unknown.[50]





https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...s/abraham-lincoln-and-passage-thirteenth-amen


However, despite fears to the contrary, in the fall of 1864, Lincoln won a resounding re-election, and with that momentum behind him, he endorsed the proposed amendment as the only way to “meet and cover all cavils” about the abolition of slavery.[3] In his December 1864 annual message to Congress, he called for “reconsideration and passage” of James Ashley’s “proposed amendment of the Constitution, abolishing slavery throughout the United States.”[4] And when Ashley moved reconsideration on January 6, 1865, Lincoln went to work, dangling rewards and twisting congressional arms, until on January 31, the reconsideration squeaked through the House by seven votes.[5]







https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...s-mostly-realistic-his-advisers-arent/265073/

Lincoln did, in fact, assume great risk in backing the amendment during his re-election canvass the year before, and he placed the weight of his presidency behind it in 1865.


Spielberg's film also credits Lincoln with sanctioning, and in some cases directly negotiating, the brazen use of patronage appointments to buy off the requisite number of lame duck Democratic congressmen. Here, the record is hazy. Historians generally agree that the president issued broad instructions to Seward, who in turn hired a group of lobbyists from his home state of New York to approach potential apostates. It's highly implausible that Lincoln dealt directly with these men, or that he immersed himself in the details. He was too smart a politician to do that. But he did whip hard for the amendment. He visited a Democratic congressman whose brother had fallen in battle, to tell him that his kin "died to save the Republic from death by the slaveholders' rebellion. I wish you could see it to be your duty to vote for the Constitutional amendment ending slavery." That scene is true to history.






History
 
Last edited:
newwurldmn said:
But the reality is that those who cling to these monuments do it to cling to the heritage of black oppression.
More...

Wrong. Our ancestors fought heroically in a war to defend their homeland. These monuments honor their memories and their sacrifices. Dishonor them at your own risk.
 
Tony Stark said:
Of course memorials/statues of people who fought to keep human beings as slaves should be taken down and it is akin to Germany having statues of Adolph Hitler up.Germany got rid of Nazism and Russia had De-Stalinization and the confederacy was more evil than both.
More...

Do you think we should tear down Caesars Palace in Las Vegas too, because Caesar not only had slaves, but he made people fight to the death, he destroyed nations and put Christians and disabled people in the arenas to be mass executed for the enjoyment of the racist,sexist, Christianophobes of the day. He was much worse that Robert E Lee and all those southern plantation owners don't you think...but nobody seems to give a hoot about Caesar. Why not?
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Wrong. Our ancestors fought heroically in a war to defend their homeland. These monuments honor their memories and their sacrifices. Dishonor them at your own risk.
More...

So what does nazism have to do with southern sacrifice? What does the KKK have to do you will a fallen war hero?

Don't confuse historical heritage with an excuse to spread bigotry and hatred.

The neo nazis see this as a symbol of hate. They are the ones who care to preserve it. And if they actually are in the minority but the loudest, the. you should check the radical forces in in your ranks.
 
Tony Stark said:
"Wrong. Our ancestors fought as traitors against The US in a war to defend Slavery "


Fixed
More...


And your heroes, the north, did not fight the war to stop slavery. Lincoln said so in his own words. He even wrote it down.

fixed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top