Posted on 08/27/2017 8:39:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
There’s been a lot of talk about the Civil War lately, given the left’s furor over Confederate statues and whatnot. These statues and monuments have long existed without any such uproar, so we can assume it’s the leftist cause du jour only because there’s little meat left on the “Russia collusion” bone, so the media is sticking to its go-to strategy of fomenting racial division.
But what’s most interesting about all of this is that the people offering the most historically ignorant comments about the Civil War generally preface their statements with “people should learn their history,” or something to that effect.
Take Keith Boykin, for example, who stated what is perhaps the most historically ignorant comment about the American Civil War that I’ve ever heard, and given the deluge of historically ignorant commentary on the subject in recent times, that’s saying something.
On Don Lemon’s CNN panel, Boykin was clearly bothered by the fact that Ben Shapiro suggested that the Confederate statues are a “local issue.” Boykin followed with this splendidly stupid statement:
We can’t celebrate the history of a man named Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis, who took up arms against the United States of America. I don’t know where everybody else draws the line, but I draw the line there. It is very possible to distinguish what Robert E. Lee did, what Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson did, from what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, though they were slaveholders, never took up arms against the United States of America.
It boggles the mind that it’s necessary to point out something so simple. When George Washington took up arms against the King George III’s army, there was no United States of America to take up arms against.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The leftist/progressive state that the protests against Confederate Memorials and for their removal are for two main reasons
1. They were traitorous rebels who seceded from the union
2. They supported slavery
Yet these same leftist/progressives grandly and publically support:
1. The California secessionist movement (Calexit)
2. Islam
To include the founder, Mohamed, who was a slave hunter, slave trader, sex slave trader and child slave trader.
To include the “holy” books (Koran and Hadith) of Islam which have specific holy instructions on how to take slaves, how to trade slaves, how to keep slaves and how to rape slaves.
Why are there no protests at Calexit meetings and at Mosques? Why are leftist/progressive so supportive of these secessionist and slavery movements?
We all know the reasons.
These protests and their largely sympathetic press coverage have nothing to do with “healing” or “cleansing our past of sins” or “Slavery” or “secessionists.”
They are temper tantrums from the left and a way to delegitimize to the legally elected president.
We’re LETTING them go down the slippery slope.
I’ll be damned if I’m gonna sit by if they try to take the Columbus statue down. Plus we on staten island and our house rep are fixing to get it moved here if they take it down.
If they say no, then I’ll likely be spending a night in jail soon.
Ah, I’ll get away from the wife for a day.
They are Democrats protesting Democrats who put up statues of Democrats.
almost everyone at that time thought that secession was legal. Secession was not mentioned in the constitution, and still isn’t even after the war. Thomas Jefferson even said that he envisioned a time when the US got too big, and people had too big that some state or group of states would want to secede, and that they should be allowed to part as friends.
They’ll be going after Vietnam memorials before it’s over.
Indeed and to stupid to know it it’s follow the mob game the media pimps losers.
On the bright side, it’s just a matter of time before it’ll be time to dissolve the Deomocrat party for there is no greater symbol for racism in this country than the party that created and defended it.
given how divisive the Vietnam War was, as far as protests, public opinion, etc. I expect that the liberals will come for the Vietnam memorials.
The claim to exceptionalism for descendants of slaves is based on the treatment their ancestors endured at the hands of slaveholders. What keeps that hatred focused is the very statues they're being connived into tearing down. Tear down the every day reminders of the Confederacy and it will only take a few generations before the black population disappears, folded into and marginalized by the "tolerant" society that got them to burn their historical heritage.
A nation needs its traditions and historical memory (good and bad) to keep it focused. Do all these aggrieved groups seriously think they're going to be any more than playthings for globalist elitists if national identities do not survive?
Is it necessary to point out that George Washington took up arms against the British and that could be the reason you don't see too many statues of him in the UK?
You can debate the right and wrong of this jihad against the statues of Confederate leaders and generals, but Boykin is technically correct when he called Lee and the others traitors. By the definition of treason outlined in Article III of the Constitution they were. And if he wants them banned on those grounds well that's his opinion and he has a right to it. Others disagree with him and they have the same right to their opinions.
That about sums it up precisely.
Islamic Mosques are their statues of thousands of years of being the worlds largest slaver party.
This country owes as much of its enviable martial heritage to Southern as Northern soldiers. Winston Churchill commented concerning American entry into WW II that victory was then assured, because our Civil War demonstrated the tenacity required to defeat the Nazis.
Now in subservience to an emerging popular morality, we must banish the Confederate battle flag, memorials, and the memory of those who served.
Responding to such assertions Ulysses Grant would repeat from Appomattox, “I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us”.
When Joshua Chamberlain received the Confederate surrender he said, “Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured?”
The bloodiest conflict this country ever endured resolved the issues of states’ rights, secession, and slavery. Great men like Grant, Sherman, Lee, and Johnston and their soldiers ended this terrible war.
Because the Confederacy’s existence was never politically recognized, Andrew Johnson and Jefferson Davis never signed a surrender document. Military actions alone resolved these issues. These military actions were fought out to the last measure of human endurance. Military leaders and their soldiers resolved what should have been political issues. Monuments North and South testify to the sincerity of those few who endured the tragedy of that struggle.
Their involvement came after abolitionists and planters and their political allies failed to identify those positions outside their inflexible ideologies that would have brought peaceful agreement. Instead these fire-eating miscreants of both persuasions stumbled into the Civil War.
Now similar intellectual dwarfs would repudiate this history.
Personal Memoirs by Ulysses S. Grant
Joshua Chamberlain
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joshua_Chamberlain
Rewriting American History
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams061417.php3
Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
http://walterewilliams.com/were-confederate-generals-traitors/
What about WW2 monuments? After all, they claim it was our fault with the Treaty of Versaille that “made” Hitler do what he did.
What about Korean War monuments? They will say it was an unjust conflict as it was never declared as war.
What about any name that has a Christian allusion to it?
Should be interesting this Christmas when Trump goes all out and the anti-Christmas knuckleheads come out of the woodwork again.
Oh now, they teach that the Japs were just fighting to end White Colonialism in Asia.
YES. All of the “innocents” killed.
this wont stop!
It’s like nazi Germany again except we have a POTUS that thinks like us!! Doesn’t make sense.
obummer overran state laws all the time.
Can’t the feds do anything?
The irony is that if Lee had commanded in 1862, he might have taken Richmond. The war might have ended much sooner, before the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery would have been weakened and it's hard to see Lincoln forcing the runaway slaves ("contraband of war") who had escaped to Federal lines to return to slavery, but the final end of slavery might have been much delayed.
This article is going to piss off the “It was all about slavery” history challenged idiots.
The Vietnam War was about killing babies. /sarcasm
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.