Posted on 04/24/2017 5:49:29 AM PDT by rktman
New Orleans officials removed the first of four prominent Confederate monuments early Monday, the latest Southern institution to sever itself from symbols viewed by many as a representation racism and white supremacy.
The first memorial to come down was the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.
Workers arrived to begin removing the statue, which commemorates whites who tried to topple a biracial post-Civil War government in New Orleans, around 1:25 a.m. in an attempt to avoid disruption from supporters who want the monuments to stay, some of whom city officials said have made death threats.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Lessons from the Taliban?
I am talking about today’s politics. Jackson was a Democrat and I like him. However, we are in a war for the future and conservatives in the North and South are on the same side.
Honest to God you are without a doubt one of the dumbest persons I’ve ever encountered.
Yes, because people obsessed with race and obsessed with imposing control from Washington D.C. are obviously conservatives.
I don't consider you dumb, just brainwashed by the propaganda that has been pushed since the Civil War. I used to believe as did you, but then people started pointing out to me things I didn't know, and which didn't make sense unless the traditional narrative was false.
You are just emotionally invested in your position, and are therefore unwilling to question the dogma you have been fed.
Project much do you?
But that’s not what you said. You falsely claimed, “There was no talk of freeing the slaves in the five slave states that remained loyal to the Union.” In truth every northern state either was a free state or had a defined path to emancipation.
Additionally every northern state participated in negotiations for the 13th Amendment both 1.0 and 2.0.
The five northern states talked about freeing the slaves.
Slaver never happened.
The North invaded the South? So Ft. Sumter isn’t an issue? And The South invading Maryland in 1862 and Gettysburg Pa in 1863 was what exactly, a walk in the wood for Lee and his army?
There was no talk of using the Force of the Union Army to free slaves in the Union Slave states. Let us follow a consistent standard between North and South.
The five northern states talked about freeing the slaves.
In the context of the Civil War, and amid claims that the war was fought to end slavery, the point of me saying there was "no talk" meant there was no talk of Federal intervention to free slaves. There was "talk" in the Southern States of freeing the slaves, but again, in context, the "talk" of which I was referring, was regarding the Federal Government forcibly freeing the slaves in their allied states.
There was no serious talk of it. This leads a reasonable person to believe that the welfare of slaves was not actually of any concern to the Federal Government, or at the very least of secondary concern.
There was no need.
In the context of the Civil War, and amid claims that the war was fought to end slavery, the point of me saying there was "no talk" meant there was no talk of Federal intervention to free slaves.
Who claims that "the war was fought to end slavery"?
There was no serious talk of it.
So discussions and negotiations of a constitutional amendment don't count as serious in your mind?
If you are going to discuss the Civil War, you should at least get major points of history correct. Yes, the North invaded the South. Repeatedly.
So Ft. Sumter isn’t an issue?
Oddly enough, Ft. Sumter was the very first invasion. Major Anderson's forces were stationed at Ft. Moultrie, and without orders, Anderson abandons that fort, and seized Ft. Sumter without warning. (Ft. Sumter had never previously had a garrison.)
The people of Charleston woke up one day to discover that a Union Army detachment had taken up residence in the Fort overlooking their harbor and city.
Now you may not be aware of this, but I have read a newspaper editorial in which the Northern Editor urged them to take over Ft. Sumter and turn it's guns upon the City. (to prevent them from engaging in European trade.) No doubt, people in Charleston had been appraised of this suggestion as well.
They had been led to believe that Union military people would eventually be engaging in an orderly withdraw, and yet Fort Moultrie was left in ashes, and now they had taken over Fort Sumter, which was far more threatening if their intentions were hostile. (Which they appeared to be.)
Sumter was a United States fortification, resting on US ground, and occupied by the US Army. Firing upon it was an overt act of war.
Virtually everyone who discusses the topic. Last week there was a thread on this, and there were perhaps 10 different people claiming that "we fought a war to end slavery."
The notion is ubiquitous. Most Americans believe that the war was fought to end slavery, and for no other reason. Here's a link.
So discussions and negotiations of a constitutional amendment don't count as serious in your mind?
Not compared to sending armed men into other people's homes and killing them. Most such discussions were after the Emancipation proclamation, and appear to be more of a justification for what they had done than any principle based effort.
While we're at it, the 13th amendment represents a lot of what is wrong with Washington D.C. Were it not for the arm twisting, bribery, kickbacks and deal making, that amendment would not have passed, and that doesn't even address the issue of having an occupation army forcing Southern States to vote for the Amendment against their will.
BS.
Last week there was a thread on this, and there were perhaps 10 different people claiming that "we fought a war to end slavery."
I hadn't seen that thread but I looked through it and counted 2 people mistakenly making that claim (well, 3 if I count one of your posts). Most people do not claim that at all. There is a difference between stating "we fought a war to end slavery" and "we fought a war over slavery".
The war was about Southern subjugation at first, then in 1863 it was repacked as a war to end slavery. This went over like a wet fart in church in the North. It kicked off riots and the Copperheads went crazy. It almost cost the Goon the 1864 election. But the Butcher’s war machine need bodies and black ones would do just fine.
It was a fortress created to defend Charleston Harbor from foreign attack, and which Representatives of the Union government had already assured them they could have back.
The effort to rendezvous a Naval task force off the coast of Charleston was a violation of the armistice, and therefore was the initiating act of war to which the attack on Ft. Sumter was a response.
You don't even have to take my word on this. You can read what Major Anderson himself said.
I had the honor to receive by yesterday's mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly, following as it does and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter w ill be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned.
...Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.
Not BS. I gave you a link. That is evidence. Go there and read how many people said the war was fought to end slavery. I'll wait.
I hadn't seen that thread but I looked through it and counted 2 people mistakenly making that claim (well, 3 if I count one of your posts). Most people do not claim that at all.
The following people either said or implied that the war was fought over slavery. There were two others that I might have counted, but they were ambiguous, so I left them out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=12#12
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=18#18
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=19#19
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=23#23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=28#28
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=51#51
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=78#78
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=86#86
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3544914/posts?page=88#88
There is a difference between stating "we fought a war to end slavery" and "we fought a war over slavery".
No there isn't. It is a distinction without a difference.
The fact remains that the war was fought to stop the Southern States from having economic independence from Washington D.C. Lincoln clearly stated that "If you like your Slavery, you can keep your Slavery".
It wasn't until January of 1863 that he made Slavery a major aspect of the War, but only regarding those states that continued to fight him. If they would have laid down their arms and surrendered, he would have let them continue having slavery.
And this is exactly what the evidence supports. It was "repackaged" as a war to end slavery.
This went over like a wet fart in church in the North. It kicked off riots and the Copperheads went crazy. It almost cost the Goon the 1864 election. But the Butcher’s war machine need bodies and black ones would do just fine.
And that too is the ugly truth.
Where did you ever get that foolish idea? That never happened.
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.