Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 13:56:41 GMT
How perfect for this thread. I came across the following quote on facebook. A friend shared it. And I have spent the past 5 minutes staring at the quote and chewing my lips and trying to restrain myself from starting a bunch of shit in public. Because it's such an obvious thing. And there's no real easy way to point out the obvious without making people feel dumb. A meme of Golda Meir saying "One cannot and *must not* try to *erase the past* merely because it does *not fit the present.*" In the end, what kept me from responding is the fact that I am 100% certain the person sharing the post has no idea who Golda Meir was. So I'm coming here where at least half of you will. Think about Golda's quote. And explain to me why Golda Meir didn't raise multiple statues of Adolf Hitler in parks all over Israel. Queshank So, for the Nazi analogy to fit, the Confederates must have overrun the North militarily for the purpose of taking over the federal government, putting everyone they didn't like in concentration camps, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and then moved to conquer the rest of the world by force, right? Reductio ad Hitlerum. Or were the 1861 Southerners far more analogous to the Poles in 1939, minding their own sovereign business, wanting to be left alone despite being surrounded by a powerful and covetous enemy. Like the CSA, the Poles were falsely blamed for starting the war by the tyrant that wanted to invade, then attacked by that tyrannical neighbor who was bent on subjugation and terror. The Poles lost that fight but I'll bet that they remembered their heroes when they were free to do so. Sound familiar? Golda Meir was right and her words really are very applicable today in opposition to the moronic ignorance represented by the defacing and removal of those monuments. Thanks for adding that quote to this thread, thus bolstering my point. You dodged that like a leftist! Well done! Wadsworth would be proud of your sidestepping to double down on defending monuments to men who added nothing to our culture but hate, division, strife, oppression and murder. But I'm going to give you a pass. A mulligan of sorts before I drill down on the obvious. Because like I say, there's no easy, nonrude way to point out the obvious to someone who can't see it. Whether because of limitations in intelligence, or, as is more likely in your case, strong programming.
I could easily make an argument that there was nobody more instrumental to the formation of the modern state of Israel than Adolf Hitler. So take another step up to the tee and... explain why Golda Meir, with her obvious "reverence" for history, didn't use her time as the Prime Minister of Israel to erect statues of Hitler in public spaces all over Israel. Does she not actually believe what she said?
Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 13:59:29 GMT
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. CSA VP Alexander Stephens on Slavery and the Confederate Constitution, 1861
YOU really need to come to grips with the fact the secession and the war WERE over slavery. Full Stop. Not State's Rights .. unless your recognize that the Right they are talking about was the Right to own slaves.
It just doesn't get more intellectually lazy than liberals quoting Stephens' Cornerstone speech. I'll see your Stephens and raise you a Lincoln quote: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
What's that you say? "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Why, of course you can! More Lincoln (to black leaders at the WH in 1862)
“See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."
ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2009/02/abraham-lincoln-racist.html
And no, it was NOT about slavery; the Corwin Amendment settled that. So did the fact that secession made infinitely worse the issues that you leftists claim were major Southern concerns: Fugitive slaves fleeing North and the expansion of slavery into the Territories. Once seceded (perfectly legal), any slave crossing into the North could no longer be pursued. And once separated from the Union, slave transport to the territories became impossible. I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think. I can show you the Declaration of Causes for secession that reference the Republican party's hostility to slavery as a reason for secession and mentions their support of slaves and slavery literally dozens of times, but I can't make you read it.
This is the problem with newbies. You have to revisit 10 years dead and finished arguments and start all over trying to unbrainwash them.
Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 14:52:50 GMT
The statues being pulled down don't bother me. I'd prefer to memorialize good people but not a bunch of murderers. And there's plenty of good people who would be worth remembering in such a way. Harriet Tubman is one. Frederick Douglas another. And of course Britney Spears.
Regarding the civil war bit, I went through a brief Tom Woods- Tom DiLorenzo phase where these contorted arguments seemed to make sense to me. Now I simply wonder what I was thinking getting hoodwinked by whataboutery, half truths and out of context quotes.
I was young enough to be open to learning at the time. I'm not sure the same antidote will work on someone who has spent a lifetime drinking this kool-aid. Regardless, keep "pelting" them with facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 15:28:23 GMT
The statues being pulled down don't bother me. I'd prefer to memorialize good people, but not a bunch of murderers. And there's plenty of good people who would be worth remembering in such a way. Harriet Tubman is one. Frederick Douglas another. And of course Britney Spears. Regarding the civil war bit, I went through a brief Tom Woods- Tom DiLorenzo phase where this contorted arguments seemed to make sense to me. Now I simply wonder what I was thinking getting hoodwinked by whataboutery, half truths and out of context quotes. I was young enough to be open to learning at the time. I'm not sure the same antidote will work on someone who has spent a lifetime drinking this koolaid. Regardless, keep "pelting" them with facts. I think one of my college professors said it best when he put it this way: "There were many things that led to the Civil War. But remove slavery from the equation and the Civil War doesn't happen. Slavery was the only irreconcilable difference."
Personally I'll be joining in on any toppling of statues in my neck of the woods. I might actually initiate said toppling if I stumble across one in my local travels.
People who claim to love history so much have had ample time to move these artifacts of history to a place designed for such reverence ... like a museum. They didn't want to move them willingly, proving their reverence wasn't for history. Now they're going to be moved forcefully.
Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 15:41:11 GMT
The statues being pulled down don't bother me. I'd prefer to memorialize good people, but not a bunch of murderers. And there's plenty of good people who would be worth remembering in such a way. Harriet Tubman is one. Frederick Douglas another. And of course Britney Spears. Regarding the civil war bit, I went through a brief Tom Woods- Tom DiLorenzo phase where this contorted arguments seemed to make sense to me. Now I simply wonder what I was thinking getting hoodwinked by whataboutery, half truths and out of context quotes. I was young enough to be open to learning at the time. I'm not sure the same antidote will work on someone who has spent a lifetime drinking this koolaid. Regardless, keep "pelting" them with facts. I think one of my college professors said it best when he put it this way: "There were many things that led to the Civil War. But remove slavery from the equation and the Civil War doesn't happen. Slavery was the only irreconcilable difference."
Personally I'll be joining in on any toppling of statues in my neck of the woods. I might actually initiate said toppling if I stumble across one in my local travels.
People who claim to love history so much have had ample time to move these artifacts of history to a place designed for such reverence ... like a museum. They didn't want to move them willingly, proving their reverence wasn't for history. Now they're going to be moved forcefully.
Queshank
Yeah, that take seems right on the money to me. Slavery was the essential element. Everything else was incidental. I am with you on supporting this. Doesn't bother me a bit. If people really care, they will do as you say and move these things to a museum. And then there is opportunity for additional context. I think its funny that republicans like to remind the left that it was democrats who owned slaves, etc yet they are the first to scream "muh heritage" the moment those CSA statues are the threatened. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 16, 2020 17:24:15 GMT
It just doesn't get more intellectually lazy than liberals quoting Stephens' Cornerstone speech. Translation: Pay no attention to the racist behind the curtain.. Your dismissal of Stephens' loud and clear case for a new Government where its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. is eerily similar to your dismissal of Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia's “Declarations of Causes" each unquestionably stating that the continuance of slavery was the the primary reason for secession .. You are asking everyone to ignore the very words of your secessionist ancestors and buy into your revisionist history. I'll see your Stephens and raise you a Lincoln quote: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” From an 1858 debate with Douglas .. Lincoln, as practically all white men of that period, believe in the supremacy of the white race. I know you think you've made a point here I'm just not sure how ... if there is one ... it relates to treasonous Southerners and secession. Lincoln did not use slavery as an excuse for treason. And no, it was NOT about slavery; the Corwin Amendment settled that. So did the fact that secession made infinitely worse the issues that you leftists claim were major Southern concerns: Fugitive slaves fleeing North and the expansion of slavery into the Territories. Once seceded (perfectly legal), any slave crossing into the North could no longer be pursued. And once separated from the Union, slave transport to the territories became impossible. The failed Corwin Amendment does nothing to help your cause as it too reinforces the fact that protecting the institution of slavery was the primary concern of Southern Conservatives. Keep swinging, Palooka I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think. So far we've seen that following you can only lead to revisionist bullshit. and "Thinking" did indeed lead me to that fact .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 18:12:06 GMT
So, for the Nazi analogy to fit, the Confederates must have overrun the North militarily for the purpose of taking over the federal government, putting everyone they didn't like in concentration camps, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and then moved to conquer the rest of the world by force, right? Reductio ad Hitlerum. Or were the 1861 Southerners far more analogous to the Poles in 1939, minding their own sovereign business, wanting to be left alone despite being surrounded by a powerful and covetous enemy. Like the CSA, the Poles were falsely blamed for starting the war by the tyrant that wanted to invade, then attacked by that tyrannical neighbor who was bent on subjugation and terror. The Poles lost that fight but I'll bet that they remembered their heroes when they were free to do so. Sound familiar? Golda Meir was right and her words really are very applicable today in opposition to the moronic ignorance represented by the defacing and removal of those monuments. Thanks for adding that quote to this thread, thus bolstering my point. You dodged that like a leftist! Well done! Wadsworth would be proud of your sidestepping to double down on defending monuments to men who added nothing to our culture but hate, division, strife, oppression and murder. But I'm going to give you a pass. A mulligan of sorts before I drill down on the obvious. Because like I say, there's no easy, nonrude way to point out the obvious to someone who can't see it. Whether because of limitations in intelligence, or, as is more likely in your case, strong programming.
I could easily make an argument that there was nobody more instrumental to the formation of the modern state of Israel than Adolf Hitler. So take another step up to the tee and... explain why Golda Meir, with her obvious "reverence" for history, didn't use her time as the Prime Minister of Israel to erect statues of Hitler in public spaces all over Israel. Does she not actually believe what she said?
Queshank
You argue like a leftist. I crush your narrative and you double down. The only men who added "hate, division, strife, oppression and murder" to our culture were the minions of the federal government who invaded the South. If that's what you believe, then you must really hate the Founding generation, who seceded from England.
If you have a point about Meir, let's have it. It's your little off topic digression, not mine. Since I've already shown the clear difference between Hitler and anyone associated with the Confederacy, why continue this Godwin's law nonsense? Make your point and I'll either agree or crush it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 18:16:39 GMT
And the legally seceded Southern states were never traitors to the United States; they were no longer part of the United States, negating any accusation of betrayal. Got it? Which means that the CSA monuments are highly appropriate and their removal is not. The only thing "proven" is your lack of historical and Constitutional knowledge. Oh, yes they were traitors to the USA. Your defense of their treason is the ultimate in sophistry. It's in a league with, "I'm not a bigamist because I no longer live with my first wife". The only thing you have proved is your inability to grasp logical argument. Sad.
Nope, not traitors at all. I'm defending legal secession and I can prove its legality; with that proven, there's no way that could be legally seceded and traitors. The only sophistry here is the stupidity of falsely calling them traitors. Your spewing all over this thread does nothing to back up your propaganda. Make your case; back it up, if you have the brains to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jun 16, 2020 19:04:01 GMT
Does anyone doubt that Orwell's 1984 is here. Dissension is no longer tolerated; history that is not approved must be rewritten or destroyed. No longer will opinions that the left disagrees with be protected.
Slight exaggeration there but some of the more loony fringes would doubtless like to eradicate anything the Stasi dislike. Possibly goes the other political way, too, we had damage to some monuments commemorating black people here. Possibly going out on a limb here, but I'm beginning to suspect that XLW and XRW people are dumber than an empty box of pigshit and have no idea about history. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 16, 2020 19:09:05 GMT
A question. Do we, in this country, have very many statues of great British generals and monarchs that celebrate the Revolutionary War?
Greg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 19:12:28 GMT
And the legally seceded Southern states were never traitors to the United States; they were no longer part of the United States, negating any accusation of betrayal. Got it? Which means that the CSA monuments are highly appropriate and their removal is not. The only thing "proven" is your lack of historical and Constitutional knowledge. Did Lincoln secede from the Union?
Nope.
Secession was NOT legal, it was NOT constitutional. There was NO provision in the US Constitution whereby one or more states could unilaterally decide they no longer wanted to play by the rules. Sorry, but your argument is consigned to the dustbin of history, like so many other examples of illogic.
What? What kind of fool question is "did Lincoln secede"?
You don't have a clue about the constitution do you? Typical leftist. There is no power granted to the Federal government or prohibition against the states related to secession in the constitution. There's no mention of secession at all, in fact, nor is there any provision that requires that a state is forever bound to the union once it has voluntarily joined. Good so far? So, knowing that the federal government has no power at all related to secession, who does have that power? Here you go, Amendment number ten:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
The state of South Carolina therefore in 1860 had the power under the Constitution to sever its ties to the Union. Once that tie was broken, she was no longer subject to any part of the U.S. Constitution. She retained all of her sovereignty and did so legally. And, please don't be ignorant enough to counter with "Texas v. White", that unconstitutional garbage from Lincoln apologist Salmon Chase, unless of course you like being laughed at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 19:21:19 GMT
Did Lincoln secede from the Union?
Nope.
Secession was NOT legal, it was NOT constitutional. There was NO provision in the US Constitution whereby one or more states could unilaterally decide they no longer wanted to play by the rules. Sorry, but your argument is consigned to the dustbin of history, like so many other examples of illogic.
What? What kind of fool question is "did Lincoln secede"?
You don't have a clue about the constitution do you? Typical leftist. There is no power granted to the Federal government or prohibition against the states related to secession in the constitution. There's no mention of secession at all, in fact, nor is there any provision that requires that a state is forever bound to the union once it has voluntarily joined. Good so far? So, knowing that the federal government has no power at all related to secession, who does have that power? Here you go, Amendment number ten:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
The state of South Carolina therefore in 1860 had the power under the Constitution to sever its ties to the Union. Once that tie was broken, she was no longer subject to any part of the U.S. Constitution. She retained all of her sovereignty and did so legally. And, please don't be ignorant enough to counter with "Texas v. White", that unconstitutional garbage from Lincoln apologist Salmon Chase, unless of course you like being laughed at.
Has that been remedied, or is any state, county, city or township free to succeed at this time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 19:32:19 GMT
A question. Do we, in this country, have very many statues of great British generals and monarchs that celebrate the Revolutionary War? Greg Not another whataboutism from Greg! Say it ain't so! The British neither remained in this country, nor were that occupied by evil invaders, nor was their cause of disarming and subjugating the colonists an honorable cause. Not at all comparable to the South whose cause mirrored the patriots of the American Revolution, with the role of Mad King George being filled by Tyrant Abraham Lincoln.
But if it's England you want to discuss, there are monuments honoring brave ancestors in Scotland and occupied Ireland who fought against the British, as well as statues to Oliver Cromwell and his Civil War, which was ultimately overturned. Should these be torn down or did the brave Scots and Irish have a legitimate point to fight for. THERE'S your difference, both here and there.
Not even the Yankees doubted the bravery and sacrifice of the Southern troops and honored them personally just as these monuments honored them in stone. Only the animalistic filth that's defacing and tearing them down today fail to understand that. Ironically, they are racists railing against racism where there is none. Such is the moronic state of the left today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 19:34:08 GMT
What? What kind of fool question is "did Lincoln secede"?
You don't have a clue about the constitution do you? Typical leftist. There is no power granted to the Federal government or prohibition against the states related to secession in the constitution. There's no mention of secession at all, in fact, nor is there any provision that requires that a state is forever bound to the union once it has voluntarily joined. Good so far? So, knowing that the federal government has no power at all related to secession, who does have that power? Here you go, Amendment number ten:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
The state of South Carolina therefore in 1860 had the power under the Constitution to sever its ties to the Union. Once that tie was broken, she was no longer subject to any part of the U.S. Constitution. She retained all of her sovereignty and did so legally. And, please don't be ignorant enough to counter with "Texas v. White", that unconstitutional garbage from Lincoln apologist Salmon Chase, unless of course you like being laughed at.
Has that been remedied, or is any state, county, city or township free to succeed at this time?
West Virginia and Chaz. And it's secede, not succeed. But the 10th amendment has not changed, so yes, each state has the right to secede to this day. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 16, 2020 19:36:19 GMT
If we take down the monuments to America's enemies people will forget those trying times... That's why no one knows who Hitler was ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 19:54:44 GMT
I can show you the Declaration of Causes for secession that reference the Republican party's hostility to slavery as a reason for secession and mentions their support of slaves and slavery literally dozens of times, but I can't make you read it.
This is the problem with newbies. You have to revisit 10 years dead and finished arguments and start all over trying to unbrainwash them.
Queshank
There were only four declarations of causes (excluding Virginia's very brief version) out of eleven seceded states. Only 20% of South Carolina's Declaration was about slavery, so that's three out of eleven. If you actually read the declarations, the clear message is the increased federal usurpation of power by the federal government and the abuse of that power by Northern interests.
If a group of corporatists and elitists gathered and issued a fiery pro business manifesto, would you automatically assume that that was the primary motivation of all Americans? If not, then why are you taking four documents and assuming that they area summary of the Southern cause? Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves; of those, only 1% owned a large quantity. This smattering did not and do not represent the Southern cause or motivation. Never did.
The only "newbie" on this particular subject appears to be you. If you want ot see brainwashing, look at the mindless animals in Boston damaging a monument to black Union soldiers and demanding that a Lincoln statue be removed.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jun 16, 2020 20:07:33 GMT
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 16, 2020 21:29:42 GMT
Did Lincoln secede from the Union?
Nope.
Secession was NOT legal, it was NOT constitutional. There was NO provision in the US Constitution whereby one or more states could unilaterally decide they no longer wanted to play by the rules. Sorry, but your argument is consigned to the dustbin of history, like so many other examples of illogic.
What? What kind of fool question is "did Lincoln secede"?
You don't have a clue about the constitution do you? Typical leftist. There is no power granted to the Federal government or prohibition against the states related to secession in the constitution. There's no mention of secession at all, in fact, nor is there any provision that requires that a state is forever bound to the union once it has voluntarily joined. Good so far? So, knowing that the federal government has no power at all related to secession, who does have that power? Here you go, Amendment number ten:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
The state of South Carolina therefore in 1860 had the power under the Constitution to sever its ties to the Union. Once that tie was broken, she was no longer subject to any part of the U.S. Constitution. She retained all of her sovereignty and did so legally. And, please don't be ignorant enough to counter with "Texas v. White", that unconstitutional garbage from Lincoln apologist Salmon Chase, unless of course you like being laughed at.
You so silly.
There was and is NO provision in the US Constitution for a state, or a group of states, to secede from the Union. Your argument again floats on the fetid breeze into pure sophistry. The argument that non-enumerated powers devolve to the states having the right to secede is contradictory. And the Federal Government still has the full right to defend itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as in the Confederacy, states that unilaterally secede have automatically lost all rights under the Constitution and in fact have become hostile powers that the Federal government has every right to wage war upon for the sake of the nation.
The illegality of secession was confirmed, after the Civil War, by the US Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by MojoJojo on Jun 16, 2020 21:40:05 GMT
West Virginia and Chaz. And it's secede, not succeed. But the 10th amendment has not changed, so yes, each state has the right to secede to this day. WV ceded from the CSA. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 16, 2020 21:54:21 GMT
There were only four declarations of causes (excluding Virginia's very brief version) out of eleven seceded states. Only 20% of South Carolina's Declaration was about slavery, so that's three out of eleven. If you actually read the declarations, the clear message is the increased federal usurpation of power by the federal government and the abuse of that power by Northern interests.
If a group of corporatists and elitists gathered and issued a fiery pro business manifesto, would you automatically assume that that was the primary motivation of all Americans? If not, then why are you taking four documents and assuming that they area summary of the Southern cause? Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves; of those, only 1% owned a large quantity. This smattering did not and do not represent the Southern cause or motivation. Never did.
The only "newbie" on this particular subject appears to be you. If you want ot see brainwashing, look at the mindless animals in Boston damaging a monument to black Union soldiers and demanding that a Lincoln statue be removed.
It's no surprise the Paleo is so much in favor of secession. Because secession is, after all, running away from an honest debate.
|
|
