You mean this one?
Posted on 12/16/2023 9:27:14 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
In the very headline of the article, it states that Congress could intervene and stop the destruction of the Confederate Memorial.
With that being the case, why isn’t the House of Representatives meeting to stop the destruction of the Confederate Memorial?
Excellent explanations saving me from the typing I was still organizing. “Don’t confuse me with the facts” seems to be the motto of too many here. They are either stubbornly ignorant, unwitting tools of villains (see “From the river to the sea”) or purposely malicious agents working to replace patriotism and faith in God with Big Government.
The average Southern soldier suffered severe hardships and deprivations most of their Northern counterparts never imagined - not for slavery’s sake (as that, like today’s illegal aliens, robbed poor citizen’s opportunities) but for the sake of their state’s being warred upon and ravaged after being financially screwed over by the Northern ones for decades.
Regarding the phrase “War of Northern Aggression” is no joke when learning how the Southern state’s were effectively punked by a Congress totally under control of the Northeastern industrial complex of that time.
Tearing down this statue is an insult to those who, despite all the tragedy, turned the other cheek and sought a brighter future. But we’re living in a time where Martin Luther King’s vision of an America where we’re judged on our qualities over color is rapidly being replaced with Diversity (voluntary segregation), Equity (socialism/communism) and Inclusion (being forced to accept people wrong for the job/task).
This crap is poisonous to America’s current and future well being and will most assuredly get our military defeated when the hostilities the Democrats and their RINO lap dogs are escalating become open wars.
As Ozzy sang in my favorite hymn: “Why don’t they go out and do the fight? Oh Lord yeah!”
Our miraculous plan for governance was and is still at risk because of the evil lust for power that is always with us.
Why do even live here? You obviously don’t love a United United States. It is THE UNITED STATES we pledge alliance to, not a defeated confederacy, it is the UNITED STATES that we are fighting to preserve against the left’s attempts to destroy it. THE UNITED STATES must be perceived, and it will be.
1. Mlk Jr was a commie loving women beating phony. 2. “ The Union must and Shall be Preserved” Trump’s hero Andrew Jackson. 3. I agree with you about the Monument, it was in the spirit of Grant- Lee reconciliation. Grant refused to let his soldiers rejoice, and let the Army of the Virginia go home with thier horses. Lee refused to go Gurillia. This Monument honors that.
“Why do you even stay in the US?”
Because I said, “I believe Lincoln did add a slave state to the Union after the Emancipation Proclamation” you are mad at me?
I didn’t think there would be anything wrong with making an historically correct statement.
“Why do even live here? You obviously don’t love a United United States.”
Friend, I could ask you the same question.
Why do you live here? Is it for preserving some facsimile of “unity” at the expense of the inconvenient Constitution? Do you want “unity” or do you want a Constitutional Republic?
I know what I want and love. You seem confused.
I want leftism driven out of the United States, and the foundation of this Biblical Country to be rebuilt. I also want a reckoning against the left for the crimes and treason they have committed against the United States.
Confederate statues are part of the cultural war; and you want no part of that. Lots of people feel that way.
And lots of people don't give two cents about keeping statues of Columbus, Jefferson, and Washington.
I am curious how you feel about defending this country's association with possible slaver Americus Vespucius. Change the name of United States of America or not?
Knock yourself out. Make that case.
“Many, many style it as “Lincoln fought to free the slaves.”
I take it you include yourself among the “Many, many”?
”I believe Lincoln did add a slave state to the Union after the Emancipation Proclamation.”
Conditionally (as you know). How picayune of you.
It’s hard to tell with you. Are you saying Lincoln wanted to overthrow Slavery, or to expand it? Seems like you are not sure.
“Does “the governed” also refer to the enslaved?”
No; the concept of “consent of the governed” was not a reference to slaves voting for wage and hour laws.
At least I don’t know of any signers of the DOI that argued that slaves were brought to this country to be electors.
Maybe you know otherwise.
What I know is only my belief that to argue for states rights on the basis of “consent of the governed”, whilst owning slaves, is hypocritical.
King was a hypocritical sex-fiend etcetera but was absolutely correct that we should all be judged on our merits and qualities over our race and pigmentation.
All men (except me) make mistakes and fall short of ideals. That doesn’t discount the good things they do or the good they inadvertently cause to happen by accident.
You, sir, seem to be on a crusade to prove the South’s side of the war was based on the defense of slavery which benefited a very small (8%) of the population there while it WAS inculcated into the culture and the economic framework to a degree where no one thought better - so modern measures of morality and values really do NOT apply to those who went to war defending State and home.
The values of that time especially do not co-relate with the communist DEI crap that the compromised media and school systems have been pushing that goes against all common sense and rationality. Meanwhile those formerly-trusted institutions continue their effort to re-write history to convince sane people to share in their insanity.
It seems like Lincoln was not sure of what he intended to do with slavery.
You must know that as an attorney Lincoln defended slave owners’ rights to get fugitive slaves back.
Even as late as his first inaugural address Lincoln advocated enforcing fugitive slave laws in the north.
But after Lincoln's skillful use of the U.S. Navy during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - I mean the Fort Sumter Incident - President Lincoln became belligerent, eventually destroying political and economic opponents in the South using the Sherman-Chivington method.
At Gettysburg Lincoln said the war was not just fought to free the slaves, but claimed the war was fought for the purpose of racial equality. This is quite a contrast to Lincoln's claim in his first inaugural address.
Many in the South felt that the United States needed to be kept united and fought for it. Agreeing that the Confederate Statues stay, these Patriots of the south should be remembered in statue as well: Thomas, Farragut, and all the Southerners who fought for the Union. They are part of the South as well.
You mean this one?
Your view? Tell us, is it hard to see out of your sphincter?
President Trump’s hero Jackson to Calhoun: “ IF you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from your body.”
Change your name to AmericanTaliban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.