150 Years Later, Floridians are Still Fighting over the Civil War

AllGov ^ | January 22, 2014 | Noel Brinkerhoff, Danny Biederman

[norwaypinesavage]

"there never was a Civil War battle that took place on Minnesota soil that would have called for memorializing those who died."

Do you think that had there been a Confederate invasion of Minnesota that had been routed by the Minnesotans, that there would be a memorial at the battle grounds memorializing the Confederates?

[Sherman Logan]

Of course, when you read what the "secessionists" wrote at the time, in their own declarations of secession, you will learn that "secession" was really all about slavery and had nothing to do with anyone's liberty.

Nope. The war at root was all about white southerners protecting their liberty to own other human beings.

That IS a liberty, though not one I have much sympathy for.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I don’t think he would have minded either. It’s a shame that people are too petty to honor the brave ordinary soldiers on both sides. Too many want to use the memories of the common soldier as a vehicle for their disdain for Lincoln or Jeff Davis.

[Sherman Logan]

It appears there is already a Union monument at Olustee, or at least at the Cemetery. Has been since 1991.

I have no idea where this is in relation to the battlefield or the proposed site.

http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/civilwar/monuments/olustee-battlefield/unity-and-peace-monument

[Repeal The 17th]

Here is just one of several of mine, and I don't think he would mind, either.

[rockrr]

Good find!

[x]

I guess it may be as much a matter of semantics, than of realities. This is considered to be a grave marker, rather than a battlefield memorial. Apparently, it’s located at a distance from the battlefield. For me, it works fine as a monument, but the proprietorial attitude of the SCV gets under some people’s skins.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

I have nothing to do with unions, never have never will.

Unions are protectionists, aren't they?

[Partisan Gunslinger]

I agree Wilson was bad news, however the states losing rights started with the civil war.

If you want to look at it like that it started with George Washington at the Whiskey Rebellion, then after that Andrew Jackson said he was going to go to South Carolina and hang those who wanted secession. The real loss of freedom is when we let non-Americans take over, and that happened in 1913.

Wilson’s doing led Germany into world war 2. What I don’t get is, U.S. Troops were barely there before the war was won. The Commonwealth had already broken Germany’s back, so why did the president get to set the rules. I think even then higher powers were at work.

Oh yeah. Wilson let them in with the Federal Reserve, he was their guy. The League of Nations and then the UN stem from Wilson and his sucking up to the internationals.

[central_va]

Unions are protectionists, aren't they?

Yes and so are the millions of non union MANUFACTURING workers that compromise 90% of those same workers.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A lot of those weren’t fighting for what they thought was right, they were conscripted. I think that were mostly in the North.

You would be wrong there. About six percent of the United States army was conscripts. The confederate conscripts were about double that.