Confederate Streets and Monuments

Rozalia · September 12, 2017

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

See, this is why I don't think you understand. You deliberately leave out the amoral cause of the war as if it wasn't significant, even in the Schwarzenegger example. Siding with Virginia meant siding with the preservation of slavery, even Lee wasn't stupid enough to deny that.

Forrest was a volunteer. All Confederate cavalry were volunteers, because the Confederate army didn't have a horse breeding program and relied on recruits supplying their own horses (or stealing Union breeds). If you volunteer for an army, you are volunteering for the cause. Remind me, what is the cause of the Civil War again?

That's my line. It's like you don't have a concept of degrees. How many Americans did Jefferson kill to preserve slavery? How many times did he almost destroy the nation he built in order to preserve slavery? I'm not denying he's a little racist shit, I'm just trying to point out that he didn't kill 200,000 Americans. Are you seriously going to sit here and say that what Jefferson did and what Lee did are equivalent in size and degree? Last time I checked my American history, Jefferson raped and beat his slaves, but he didn't kill 200,000 Americans to do it. Jefferson helped build our country, he can be defended on those grounds. Lee tried to tear apart ours, he is indefensible.

So then why did Longstreet fight in the Civil War on the Confederate side? Are you suggesting that Longstreet was simply too damn stupid to know that the army he fought for was the one that would preserve slavery if it won? And you honestly think we should put up a statue of a person who fought on that side of the war but "redeemed" himself after the fact? Does England have statues of Rudolf Hess too?

Let's get this fact straight. The Confederate army was fighting for one thing, and one thing only: the preservation of slavery. The north knew it, the south knew it. Everyone knew it. The Confederates, unlike their Union counterparts, were almost entirely volunteers. If you volunteered to fight for the South, you were fighting for the preservation of slavery, and you were willing to kill Americans for it. That has little or no moral redemption, let alone deserving of glorification on a pedestal.

Sounds like you're badmouthing volunteers there. Do the soldiers that go over to the poorest places in the world and bomb them to ruins all in on the policies of those at the top? There are many reasons people may volunteer.

I'm asking you about Longstreet and you keep going back to Lee. I've already acknowledged there is no shifting you on the likes of Lee and that is fine, I perfectly understand your argument. However on the likes of Longstreet this argument of yours is far weaker quite clearly. Jefferson was a racist slave owning rapist. He more than most had the power to change things, to make things match his apparent beliefs and what did he do? Not what he should have done if he wasn't a liar, a hypocrite, and a racist.
If Longstreet is to be condemned regardless of whatever good deeds he may have done after (don't get me wrong, still no saint obviously), and he seemed to do more for black people than Jefferson ever did in that regard by the way.

Again. (Modern) Democrats built a statue of a former KKK member in Robert Byrd and the likes of the Clintons have defended him for the good he apparently did after the KKK. Yet his statue isn't getting torn down. Look, you're being even more extreme than CNN at this point.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/23/opinions/where-are-monuments-to-confederate-general-longstreet-opinion-holmes/index.html

Funny you should mention that. "If it wasn't about slavery, then I don't know what else it was about." was apparently something the man said himself. There is a reason that he is the Confederate commander that has been ignored and not had masses and masses of statues put up to honour him.

Caecus · September 12, 2017

26 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Sounds like you're badmouthing volunteers there. Do the soldiers that go over to the poorest places in the world and bomb them to ruins all in on the policies of those at the top? There are many reasons people may volunteer.

I'm asking you about Longstreet and you keep going back to Lee. I've already acknowledged there is no shifting you on the likes of Lee and that is fine, I perfectly understand your argument. However on the likes of Longstreet this argument of yours is far weaker quite clearly. Jefferson was a racist slave owning rapist. He more than most had the power to change things, to make things match his apparent beliefs and what did he do? Not what he should have done if he wasn't a liar, a hypocrite, and a racist.
If Longstreet is to be condemned regardless of whatever good deeds he may have done after (don't get me wrong, still no saint obviously), and he seemed to do more for black people than Jefferson ever did in that regard by the way.

Again. (Modern) Democrats built a statue of a former KKK member in Robert Byrd and the likes of the Clintons have defended him for the good he apparently did after the KKK. Yet his statue isn't getting torn down. Look, you're being even more extreme than CNN at this point.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/23/opinions/where-are-monuments-to-confederate-general-longstreet-opinion-holmes/index.html

Funny you should mention that. "If it wasn't about slavery, then I don't know what else it was about." was apparently something the man said himself. There is a reason that he is the Confederate commander that has been ignored and not had masses and masses of statues put up to honour him.

Yeah, and I could volunteer to be a concentration camp guard at Auschwitz, I'm a !@#$ing angel. You troll.

Oh, ok. So we all agree that Lee is a piece of shit and it is morally indefensible to have statues of him up right? Good. I'm going to pull this out of your own link that you put down:

"Longstreet was no racial saint. He argued privately that whites needed to embrace Reconstruction so that they, and not the newly freed blacks, would be in charge of rebuilding the South..."

The difference between Longstreet and everyone else was that he was a racist, pro-slavery traitor AND had sound political sense in Reconstruction. I still don't think he's worth jack shit. Some random dipshit editor of the Washington Post and CNN can say all they want in opinion pieces (not that the opinion pieces reflect any left wing sentiment, I could probably find some anti-statue guy in the WSJ), they are wrong as they are stupid. Besides, its an editor at CNN and Washington Post! Quoting them is just asking people to make fun of you for being a dipshit.

As for the statue of the KKK guy, idk why you think I wouldn't want that statue torn down. You also have the misconception that I somehow think the Clintons are infallible. Do you think I like Hillary Clinton? Is that the impression I keep giving you? I don't like Hillary Clinton, it's just that a !@#$ing inanimate potato would be better than Trump and if my only other option was Clinton, I'd vote for her. #potato2020

According to the opinion piece you so conveniently provided me, it's because:

"Lost Cause adherents glorified the antebellum South, painting a bucolic tableau of Southern belles, stately plantations and happy slaves. They created the myth of "gallant" Confederate soldiers who only lost the war because they were ground down by the overwhelming numbers of the Union army... Erecting a statue to someone like Longstreet, who urged political cooperation with blacks, did not fit into this campaign of intimidation."

Yeah, he's still a piece of shit and doesn't deserve to be put up next to Washington or Jefferson. He doesn't have ideals, only political motivations, and I'm surprised (well, not really) that it went over a CNN editor's head.

Rozalia · September 12, 2017

53 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Yeah, and I could volunteer to be a concentration camp guard at Auschwitz, I'm a !@#$ing angel. You troll.

Oh, ok. So we all agree that Lee is a piece of shit and it is morally indefensible to have statues of him up right? Good. I'm going to pull this out of your own link that you put down:

"Longstreet was no racial saint. He argued privately that whites needed to embrace Reconstruction so that they, and not the newly freed blacks, would be in charge of rebuilding the South..."

The difference between Longstreet and everyone else was that he was a racist, pro-slavery traitor AND had sound political sense in Reconstruction. I still don't think he's worth jack shit. Some random dipshit editor of the Washington Post and CNN can say all they want in opinion pieces (not that the opinion pieces reflect any left wing sentiment, I could probably find some anti-statue guy in the WSJ), they are wrong as they are stupid. Besides, its an editor at CNN and Washington Post! Quoting them is just asking people to make fun of you for being a dipshit.

As for the statue of the KKK guy, idk why you think I wouldn't want that statue torn down. You also have the misconception that I somehow think the Clintons are infallible. Do you think I like Hillary Clinton? Is that the impression I keep giving you? I don't like Hillary Clinton, it's just that a !@#$ing inanimate potato would be better than Trump and if my only other option was Clinton, I'd vote for her. #potato2020

According to the opinion piece you so conveniently provided me, it's because:

"Lost Cause adherents glorified the antebellum South, painting a bucolic tableau of Southern belles, stately plantations and happy slaves. They created the myth of "gallant" Confederate soldiers who only lost the war because they were ground down by the overwhelming numbers of the Union army... Erecting a statue to someone like Longstreet, who urged political cooperation with blacks, did not fit into this campaign of intimidation."

Yeah, he's still a piece of shit and doesn't deserve to be put up next to Washington or Jefferson. He doesn't have ideals, only political motivations, and I'm surprised (well, not really) that it went over a CNN editor's head.

Did all the German soldiers get executed like many of their leaders? No. Were all of them condemned for Nazism? No. Actually speaking of Nazis. Did you know in China they honour a Nazi as a hero for saving the lives of 200,000 people from the Japanese Imperial Army? You seem to think membership of something means you're just automatically evil and should be spat on forever. Not so much.

I don't believe I called him a saint.

Hey now, I'm merely using the sources that are considered "legitimate" by your side of the political aisle. You want me to go get Breitbart or something? Such sorts don't like Longstreet very much so perhaps they'd agree with you I suppose.

So let me ask this question. Jefferson with all of his influence and power did what for blacks? Did he risk his career? His health? His reputation? His wealth? Longstreet as ultimately flawed as he was (and everyone in history is flawed to some degree) went out there and fought against white supremacist Democrats. He had to put up with being smeared as a traitor to his race and the reason why the "glorious" General Lee lost. Funnily enough the Democrats killed in the battle with Longstreet's forces got a large monument in 1891 to them which recently got taken down. Longstreet on the other hand I struggle to find anything on. I can find two statues, one in 1998 at the Gettysburg National Military Park which required the public to pay for it as the government it seems was ready to simply not build a statue for him. The second seems to be at the Longstreet Society which was established in 2008 so it can't be all that old either.

On the issue of the KKK Clinton guy... why'd it take you so long to finally address it after so much prompting? Also you should get your own house in order before trying to put other's houses in order. His statue should be the first to go I'd say. There is a reason that Republicans have been calling it out lately. A child can see how hypocritical it is to keep that statue up while tearing down others.

You seriously cannot go for a middle ground on the issue? You side with the extremists who want to destroy them all? What about the monument to the common Confederate soldiers? That should go too I assume. I'd say the ground you're standing on is even weaker than Milton's as at least he is consistent and is all for tearing down Jefferson and all the rest. You however while happy to savage certain racists, will also happily defend in many cases worse racists. And don't even try to say no to this. Most Confederates were nothing compared to the vile Jefferson. Go ahead, defend the racist rapist again.

Caecus · September 12, 2017

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Did all the German soldiers get executed like many of their leaders? No. Were all of them condemned for Nazism? No. Actually speaking of Nazis. Did you know in China they honour a Nazi as a hero for saving the lives of 200,000 people from the Japanese Imperial Army? You seem to think membership of something means you're just automatically evil and should be spat on forever. Not so much.

I don't believe I called him a saint.

Hey now, I'm merely using the sources that are considered "legitimate" by your side of the political aisle. You want me to go get Breitbart or something? Such sorts don't like Longstreet very much so perhaps they'd agree with you I suppose.

So let me ask this question. Jefferson with all of his influence and power did what for blacks? Did he risk his career? His health? His reputation? His wealth? Longstreet as ultimately flawed as he was (and everyone in history is flawed to some degree) went out there and fought against white supremacist Democrats. He had to put up with being smeared as a traitor to his race and the reason why the "glorious" General Lee lost. Funnily enough the Democrats killed in the battle with Longstreet's forces got a large monument in 1891 to them which recently got taken down. Longstreet on the other hand I struggle to find anything on. I can find two statues, one in 1998 at the Gettysburg National Military Park which required the public to pay for it as the government it seems was ready to simply not build a statue for him. The second seems to be at the Longstreet Society which was established in 2008 so it can't be all that old either.

On the issue of the KKK Clinton guy... why'd it take you so long to finally address it after so much prompting? Also you should get your own house in order before trying to put other's houses in order. His statue should be the first to go I'd say. There is a reason that Republicans have been calling it out lately. A child can see how hypocritical it is to keep that statue up while tearing down others.

You seriously cannot go for a middle ground on the issue? You side with the extremists who want to destroy them all? What about the monument to the common Confederate soldiers? That should go too I assume. I'd say the ground you're standing on is even weaker than Milton's as at least he is consistent and is all for tearing down Jefferson and all the rest. You however while happy to savage certain racists, will also happily defend in many cases worse racists. And don't even try to say no to this. Most Confederates were nothing compared to the vile Jefferson. Go ahead, defend the racist rapist again.

At least when the German soldiers ran around, they only knowingly shot Russian commissars. German soldiers were told (and many of them dumb enough to believe) that they were defending their country, not going on a campaign of aggressive expansion in which the end goal was to exterminate lesser races in order to make "living room" for the master race. Unlike Confederate soldiers, who knowingly fought for the preservation of their "state's rights." As for the execution of German soldiers, does freezing and starving in a Soviet POW camp count?

In other words, he's not a decent guy? Like, between Jesus and Hitler, where does Longstreet stand? He's pretty morally dubious, to say the least.

Longstreet "fought" against white supremacist Democrats? Oh really! Did he grab his rifle and volunteer to join the federal forces, both during the Civil War and Reconstruction? I honestly don't know, but I'm putting top dollar on not. "Fought" is an over-exaggeration for someone who vocally disagreed with dipshits on how to properly suppress black people in a post-slavery world. Longstreet didn't have any morals, he only had different ideas to achieve the same racist goal.

Let's go over your argument here: you are trying to paint me as being hypocritical. You just have one problem: I'm not Clinton. Does that look like me hugging some KKK guy? Does that look like me putting up a statue of said KKK guy? You literally pulled that shit out of your ass to try and justify Lee's statue being up, and somehow confusing me for being Clinton. It's such a pointless tangent that really doesn't deserve a response to.

I'm sure I could find a middle ground, just like all the other Confederate leaders who decided to find a middle ground at Antietam to morally die on. And as I have said before, I can defend Jefferson, I can't defend Confederate leaders. Keeping in mind that your only defense of Confederate leaders so far is "they did some other potentially redeemable shit after the fact" and you've already conceded on Lee being a piece of indefensible shit. You want to try that exercise? I'll list the legacy of Jefferson and all of his achievements, and you list how he was a racist little dipshit, and we'll weigh the moral righteousness of the founding father. Better yet! Try me with Washington or Lincoln, if you want a real challenge.

List for me the achievements and contributions of any of the Confederate leaders to the United States, and let's weigh that against the half a million American lives they took to try and save slavery. I assure you, defending Jefferson (as much as a racist piece of shit he was) is a lot easier.

I think I've given you the impression that I'm a middle-path guy on everything. I'm not, just on political issues that I couldn't care less about. The purpose of the middle ground is to get things done, partially satisfy both parties. How can anyone with a spine (key word there, I'm looking at you, Paul Ryan) walk the middle ground on moral issues that define the existence and purpose of a nation?

Edited September 12, 2017 by Caecus

Rozalia · September 13, 2017

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

At least when the German soldiers ran around, they only knowingly shot Russian commissars. German soldiers were told (and many of them dumb enough to believe) that they were defending their country, not going on a campaign of aggressive expansion in which the end goal was to exterminate lesser races in order to make "living room" for the master race. Unlike Confederate soldiers, who knowingly fought for the preservation of their "state's rights." As for the execution of German soldiers, does freezing and starving in a Soviet POW camp count?

In other words, he's not a decent guy? Like, between Jesus and Hitler, where does Longstreet stand? He's pretty morally dubious, to say the least.

Longstreet "fought" against white supremacist Democrats? Oh really! Did he grab his rifle and volunteer to join the federal forces, both during the Civil War and Reconstruction? I honestly don't know, but I'm putting top dollar on not. "Fought" is an over-exaggeration for someone who vocally disagreed with dipshits on how to properly suppress black people in a post-slavery world. Longstreet didn't have any morals, he only had different ideas to achieve the same racist goal.

Let's go over your argument here: you are trying to paint me as being hypocritical. You just have one problem: I'm not Clinton. Does that look like me hugging some KKK guy? Does that look like me putting up a statue of said KKK guy? You literally pulled that shit out of your ass to try and justify Lee's statue being up, and somehow confusing me for being Clinton. It's such a pointless tangent that really doesn't deserve a response to.

I'm sure I could find a middle ground, just like all the other Confederate leaders who decided to find a middle ground at Antietam to morally die on. And as I have said before, I can defend Jefferson, I can't defend Confederate leaders. Keeping in mind that your only defense of Confederate leaders so far is "they did some other potentially redeemable shit after the fact" and you've already conceded on Lee being a piece of indefensible shit. You want to try that exercise? I'll list the legacy of Jefferson and all of his achievements, and you list how he was a racist little dipshit, and we'll weigh the moral righteousness of the founding father. Better yet! Try me with Washington or Lincoln, if you want a real challenge.

List for me the achievements and contributions of any of the Confederate leaders to the United States, and let's weigh that against the half a million American lives they took to try and save slavery. I assure you, defending Jefferson (as much as a racist piece of shit he was) is a lot easier.

I think I've given you the impression that I'm a middle-path guy on everything. I'm not, just on political issues that I couldn't care less about. The purpose of the middle ground is to get things done, partially satisfy both parties. How can anyone with a spine (key word there, I'm looking at you, Paul Ryan) walk the middle ground on moral issues that define the existence and purpose of a nation?

... ? How in anyway is Confederate soldiers being told they are defending their states, their homelands, different from German soldiers being told they were doing the same? Also no it doesn't count as the Soviets were very much a third force we tolerated for the goal of defeating Germany. There is a reason right after Germany lost Churchill wanted to ally with the German state in an invasion of the Soviets. Alright, he had war on the brain, but the larger reason is that the Soviets were enemies too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place

"The paramilitary (Democratic) White League entered the city with a force of 5,000 to seat McEnery; they fought against 3,500 police and state militia (included black soldiers and under the command of James Longstreet) for control. The White League defeated the state militia, inflicting about 100 casualties. The insurgents occupied the state house and armory for three days, and turned out Governor Kellogg. When former Confederate general James Longstreet tried to stop the fighting, he was pulled from his horse, shot by a spent bullet, and taken prisoner by the White League".

I suppose you can downplay him getting shot trying to stop the White League from doing what they had previously done (killed 150 black people) if you like. It'd show a great dishonesty but alright.

I'm painting the whole Democratic thrust, of which ultimately you are a member of, as hypocritical. Sorry if you don't like it but it is true. If you condemn them for their hypocrisy too then that is good.

Really now? I've already weighed it and Jefferson came out the loser but lets expand. The slave he raped and impregnated 6 times was the half sister of his wife. He first raped her when she was a child (so we can add paedophile to the list of his faults, him being 30 years older than her at the time also) in Paris where legally she was a free woman. He kept his own children as slaves until the age of 21 where he being such a moral man released them (only ones released)... except he only did that as that was a promise he made to the woman he raped to get her to agree to come back with him to America (where she would be a slave).

What did he do for black people (outside beating and raping them)? He argued that they were inferior and "corrupted" their white masters, oh my heart bleeds for the racist. The slaves get raped and he has to do the raping, what a burden for him. Speaking of corruption of white slave masters... didn't Lee like say something basically word for word? Anyway. He put forward legislation to ban slavery in any new states added to the US which failed but later as President he managed to ban importation of slaves into America wholesale... which did nothing for the slaves already in America. Oh and of course that was based on white purity as his other idea was that freed slaves should be made to "colonise" (get deported) to places where the darkies could live together, away from the white man. So "Make America White Again!", too many darkies about. If you're wondering that is the policy of the "moderate" extremists on the Far-Right. "Look we don't want to kill black people... we just want them all deported alright". Like Thomas Jefferson would have done you could say. He is noted for his words that all men are created equal and have rights and all that guff. Black people however didn't seem to count, perhaps they were beasts to Jefferson that is why it didn't count for them. Oh wait, it was "too hard" to stop slavery right? Much more likely is the fact that Jefferson ultimately required slaves as without them he'd have been in even more serious financial problems. We know the monetary value of Jefferson's ideals I suppose.
Physically did he ever get shot, put in pain, for anything that would help black people? He perhaps hurt his arm beating slaves and raping can be exhausting work... perhaps that counts for you I don't know.

Now Longstreet. His small owning of slaves I can find only one mention of in the Virginia encyclopedia. Another site has a contributer who mentions he had a "personal assistant" though it is unclear if even that guy was a slave. So he owned 0 to perhaps a number of slaves you could count on one hand. Jefferson owned around 200 by comparison. I can find no records of Longstreet beating or raping whatever slaves he may have had. Don't see any war time atrocities attributed to him (they are largely attributed to Lee who gave them silent approval). It is noted:

"Longstreet was not enthusiastic about secession from the Union, but he had learned from his uncle Augustus about the doctrine of states' rights early in his life and had seen his uncle's passion for it."

So he was brought up (from the age of 9) by his uncle who was really into states' rights, and was also alive at the time.

Post war he asked people to work together with the Republicans and endorsed Ulysses S. Grant. He lead a force including black men against democratic white racists and got shot for it. For this "betrayal of his race" his record throughout the war was smeared and later as people would put up statues to any old Confederate commander he was passed over as he was a "traitor", a "coward", and also "greedy" (the implication being he sold out his race for money). On this matter it seems you agree with those people, those people you detest so much. You talked of them putting up statues to show the minorities who is boss and all that before. None of them ever put up a statue of Longstreet for such a goal.

There are a few other Confederates who joined with the Republicans and showed some positive actions. They were not Jesus or whatever you might ask no. However they were former Confederates who changed for the better and helped bring fairness, education, protection, and other positive things for blacks in the south. Of which they were opposed and smeared by at the time by the white democratic racists, smearing which ultimately considering Longstreet barely has any statues to him and others who joined the Republicans seem to have zero, continues to this day. Like do you seriously not believe in redemption? In forgiveness? What kind of message is that to people out there who are racist and whatever else? Do you have any idea? Don't bother changing for the better, we will condemn you forever. What a message that is, so convincing.

Caecus · September 13, 2017

20 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

... ? How in anyway is Confederate soldiers being told they are defending their states, their homelands, different from German soldiers being told they were doing the same? Also no it doesn't count as the Soviets were very much a third force we tolerated for the goal of defeating Germany. There is a reason right after Germany lost Churchill wanted to ally with the German state in an invasion of the Soviets. Alright, he had war on the brain, but the larger reason is that the Soviets were enemies too.

They weren't defending their states, they were rebelling against their democratically elected government that gave them fair representation in order to preserve slavery. Stop trying to whitewash what they did, otherwise you might start to sound like a white supremacist/"Lost Cause" advocate. They knew it was for slavery, their decedents knew it was for slavery, and the only reason why the "Lost Cause" is there in the first place is because people can't grapple with the fact that their ancestors were a bunch of hypocritical racists who killed for slavery.

55 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place

"The paramilitary (Democratic) White League entered the city with a force of 5,000 to seat McEnery; they fought against 3,500 police and state militia (included black soldiers and under the command of James Longstreet) for control. The White League defeated the state militia, inflicting about 100 casualties. The insurgents occupied the state house and armory for three days, and turned out Governor Kellogg. When former Confederate general James Longstreet tried to stop the fighting, he was pulled from his horse, shot by a spent bullet, and taken prisoner by the White League".

I suppose you can downplay him getting shot trying to stop the White League from doing what they had previously done (killed 150 black people) if you like. It'd show a great dishonesty but alright.

I honestly don't see how this is relevant. Let me get this straight, you are trying to argue that the US should put up a statue of Longstreet because he commanded the local police and militia to put down violent protesters. So you are just going to ignore the fact that he didn't believe that black people were equals and was actively going about reconstituting an antebellum racial hierarchy by cooperating with the Reconstruction government? Even if we just entirely ignored that fact, what has Longstreet done for this country that warrants him being on a pedestal?

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Now Longstreet. His small owning of slaves I can find only one mention of in the Virginia encyclopedia. Another site has a contributer who mentions he had a "personal assistant" though it is unclear if even that guy was a slave. So he owned 0 to perhaps a number of slaves you could count on one hand. Jefferson owned around 200 by comparison. I can find no records of Longstreet beating or raping whatever slaves he may have had. Don't see any war time atrocities attributed to him (they are largely attributed to Lee who gave them silent approval). It is noted:

"Longstreet was not enthusiastic about secession from the Union, but he had learned from his uncle Augustus about the doctrine of states' rights early in his life and had seen his uncle's passion for it."

So he was brought up (from the age of 9) by his uncle who was really into states' rights, and was also alive at the time.

Post war he asked people to work together with the Republicans and endorsed Ulysses S. Grant. He lead a force including black men against democratic white racists and got shot for it. For this "betrayal of his race" his record throughout the war was smeared and later as people would put up statues to any old Confederate commander he was passed over as he was a "traitor", a "coward", and also "greedy" (the implication being he sold out his race for money). On this matter it seems you agree with those people, those people you detest so much. You talked of them putting up statues to show the minorities who is boss and all that before. None of them ever put up a statue of Longstreet for such a goal.

Here is what Longstreet would be competing against: Lincoln saved this republic from tearing itself apart over the issue of slavery. He played a direct role in the 13th amendment and forever emancipated blacks from bondage in the United States, ending the hypocrisy that is slavery in a country that claims to be free. Instead of razing the South (as I would have done), he forgave them, had them return to the union with their representatives restored to the federal congress, and then proceeded to take a bullet for his country. Longstreet doesn't have shit on Lincoln, get the !@#$ out of here. His worthless ass shouldn't even be mentioned, much less put on a pedestal.

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

I'm painting the whole Democratic thrust, of which ultimately you are a member of, as hypocritical. Sorry if you don't like it but it is true. If you condemn them for their hypocrisy too then that is good.

I'm not Clinton. If Clinton represented the whole of the Democratic thrust, we wouldn't have whiny little shits called Bernie Bros !@#$ing our country over.

By that logic, the whole movement to keep up the statues would be represented by David Duke and the white supremacists. Anyone who wants to keep up the statues must be either a Nazi or a white supremacist. After all, there aren't any moderate, non-violent history buffs just dying to preserve history. That would be sarcasm if it wasn't true. Let me know when you find someone protesting to keep up a statue who isn't a Nazi. If you claim to not be a Nazi, then you can stuff your generalization right back up your ass.

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Really now? I've already weighed it and Jefferson came out the loser but lets expand. The slave he raped and impregnated 6 times was the half sister of his wife. He first raped her when she was a child (so we can add paedophile to the list of his faults, him being 30 years older than her at the time also) in Paris where legally she was a free woman. He kept his own children as slaves until the age of 21 where he being such a moral man released them (only ones released)... except he only did that as that was a promise he made to the woman he raped to get her to agree to come back with him to America (where she would be a slave).

What did he do for black people (outside beating and raping them)? He argued that they were inferior and "corrupted" their white masters, oh my heart bleeds for the racist. The slaves get raped and he has to do the raping, what a burden for him. Speaking of corruption of white slave masters... didn't Lee like say something basically word for word? Anyway. He put forward legislation to ban slavery in any new states added to the US which failed but later as President he managed to ban importation of slaves into America wholesale... which did nothing for the slaves already in America. Oh and of course that was based on white purity as his other idea was that freed slaves should be made to "colonise" (get deported) to places where the darkies could live together, away from the white man. So "Make America White Again!", too many darkies about. If you're wondering that is the policy of the "moderate" extremists on the Far-Right. "Look we don't want to kill black people... we just want them all deported alright". Like Thomas Jefferson would have done you could say. He is noted for his words that all men are created equal and have rights and all that guff. Black people however didn't seem to count, perhaps they were beasts to Jefferson that is why it didn't count for them. Oh wait, it was "too hard" to stop slavery right? Much more likely is the fact that Jefferson ultimately required slaves as without them he'd have been in even more serious financial problems. We know the monetary value of Jefferson's ideals I suppose.
Physically did he ever get shot, put in pain, for anything that would help black people? He perhaps hurt his arm beating slaves and raping can be exhausting work... perhaps that counts for you I don't know.

Actually, completely ignoring the other achievements Jefferson made for his country, it looks like Jefferson did more than Lee or any other Confederate did. Unlike Lee and the rest of the Confederacy, Jefferson banned the importation of slaves and tried to end slavery gradually. Let me know how many !@#$ the Confederacy gave to end slavery.

Jefferson founded the country, wrote its immortal ideals down and setting the tone for the moral path of the republic, and contributed to its intellectual motivations. He practically wrote the laws of our country and his state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

"Many historians have described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner^[295] who didn't overwork his slaves by the conventions of his time, and provided them log cabins with fireplaces, food, clothing and some household provisions, though slaves often had to make many of their own provisions. Additionally, Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. The whip was employed only in rare and extreme cases of fighting and stealing.^[293]^[296]"

^"Jefferson felt slavery was harmful to both slave and master, but had reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom and advocated gradual emancipation.^[300]^[301]^[302] In 1779, he proposed gradual voluntary training and resettlement to the Virginia legislature, and three years later drafted legislation allowing owners to free their own slaves.^[303] In his draft of the Declaration of Independence, he included a section, stricken by other Southern delegates, criticizing King George III's role in promoting slavery in the colonies.^[304] In 1784, Jefferson proposed the abolition of slavery in all western U.S. territories, limiting slave importation to 15 years.^[305] Congress, however, failed to pass his proposal by one vote.^[305]"

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

There are a few other Confederates who joined with the Republicans and showed some positive actions. They were not Jesus or whatever you might ask no. However they were former Confederates who changed for the better and helped bring fairness, education, protection, and other positive things for blacks in the south. Of which they were opposed and smeared by at the time by the white democratic racists, smearing which ultimately considering Longstreet barely has any statues to him and others who joined the Republicans seem to have zero, continues to this day. Like do you seriously not believe in redemption? In forgiveness? What kind of message is that to people out there who are racist and whatever else? Do you have any idea? Don't bother changing for the better, we will condemn you forever. What a message that is, so convincing.

Such as? Any specifics? Also, let me know how their plan to bring "fairness, education, protection and other positive things" worked out. It's been a while since I cracked a gilded age textbook, but if memory serves, Jim Crow was after Reconstruction, was it not? I love how when I ask you what "good things" were done, you can't name a single !@#$ing thing off the top of your head. Go google this shit, I'm sure you'll find some vague article on a Confederate general opening an orphanage.

There is a BIG !@#$ing DIFFERENCE between being racist and killing Americans to chain up black people. Again, degrees and sizes, I'm not sure you have a conception of what a scale is. And yes, I don't believe that "leading some black troops" to put down a riot redeems you from betraying your country so you can keep slavery. Again, there isn't a lot that can morally redeem yourself after you knowingly fought for a cause that would keep people in chains and killed your own countrymen to do it. Even if it were somehow redeemable, even if we did forgive them, are they paragons of our ideals? Do they deserve to stand next to Lincoln and Washington? The answer is no, these worthless shits should stay in textbooks where kids can learn what they shouldn't be doing.

Rozalia · September 13, 2017

2 minutes ago, Caecus said:

They weren't defending their states, they were rebelling against their democratically elected government that gave them fair representation in order to preserve slavery. Stop trying to whitewash what they did, otherwise you might start to sound like a white supremacist/"Lost Cause" advocate. They knew it was for slavery, their decedents knew it was for slavery, and the only reason why the "Lost Cause" is there in the first place is because people can't grapple with the fact that their ancestors were a bunch of hypocritical racists who killed for slavery.

I honestly don't see how this is relevant. Let me get this straight, you are trying to argue that the US should put up a statue of Longstreet because he commanded the local police and militia to put down violent protesters. So you are just going to ignore the fact that he didn't believe that black people were equals and was actively going about reconstituting an antebellum racial hierarchy by cooperating with the Reconstruction government? Even if we just entirely ignored that fact, what has Longstreet done for this country that warrants him being on a pedestal?

Here is what Longstreet would be competing against: Lincoln saved this republic from tearing itself apart over the issue of slavery. He played a direct role in the 13th amendment and forever emancipated blacks from bondage in the United States, ending the hypocrisy that is slavery in a country that claims to be free. Instead of razing the South (as I would have done), he forgave them, had them return to the union with their representatives restored to the federal congress, and then proceeded to take a bullet for his country. Longstreet doesn't have shit on Lincoln, get the !@#$ out of here. His worthless ass shouldn't even be mentioned, much less put on a pedestal.

I'm not Clinton. If Clinton represented the whole of the Democratic thrust, we wouldn't have whiny little shits called Bernie Bros !@#$ing our country over.

By that logic, the whole movement to keep up the statues would be represented by David Duke and the white supremacists. Anyone who wants to keep up the statues must be either a Nazi or a white supremacist. After all, there aren't any moderate, non-violent history buffs just dying to preserve history. That would be sarcasm if it wasn't true. Let me know when you find someone protesting to keep up a statue who isn't a Nazi. If you claim to not be a Nazi, then you can stuff your generalization right back up your ass.

Actually, completely ignoring the other achievements Jefferson made for his country, it looks like Jefferson did more than Lee or any other Confederate did. Unlike Lee and the rest of the Confederacy, Jefferson banned the importation of slaves and tried to end slavery gradually. Let me know how many !@#$ the Confederacy gave to end slavery.

Jefferson founded the country, wrote its immortal ideals down and setting the tone for the moral path of the republic, and contributed to its intellectual motivations. He practically wrote the laws of our country and his state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

"Many historians have described Jefferson as a benevolent slaveowner^[295] who didn't overwork his slaves by the conventions of his time, and provided them log cabins with fireplaces, food, clothing and some household provisions, though slaves often had to make many of their own provisions. Additionally, Jefferson gave his slaves financial and other incentives while also allowing them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. The whip was employed only in rare and extreme cases of fighting and stealing.^[293]^[296]"

^"Jefferson felt slavery was harmful to both slave and master, but had reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom and advocated gradual emancipation.^[300]^[301]^[302] In 1779, he proposed gradual voluntary training and resettlement to the Virginia legislature, and three years later drafted legislation allowing owners to free their own slaves.^[303] In his draft of the Declaration of Independence, he included a section, stricken by other Southern delegates, criticizing King George III's role in promoting slavery in the colonies.^[304] In 1784, Jefferson proposed the abolition of slavery in all western U.S. territories, limiting slave importation to 15 years.^[305] Congress, however, failed to pass his proposal by one vote.^[305]"

Such as? Any specifics? Also, let me know how their plan to bring "fairness, education, protection and other positive things" worked out. It's been a while since I cracked a gilded age textbook, but if memory serves, Jim Crow was after Reconstruction, was it not? I love how when I ask you what "good things" were done, you can't name a single !@#$ing thing off the top of your head. Go google this shit, I'm sure you'll find some vague article on a Confederate general opening an orphanage.

There is a BIG !@#$ing DIFFERENCE between being racist and killing Americans to chain up black people. Again, degrees and sizes, I'm not sure you have a conception of what a scale is. And yes, I don't believe that "leading some black troops" to put down a riot redeems you from betraying your country so you can keep slavery. Again, there isn't a lot that can morally redeem yourself after you knowingly fought for a cause that would keep people in chains and killed your own countrymen to do it. Even if it were somehow redeemable, even if we did forgive them, are they paragons of our ideals? Do they deserve to stand next to Lincoln and Washington? The answer is no, these worthless shits should stay in textbooks where kids can learn what they shouldn't be doing.

I should be careful of sounding like a racist? Me? Not the guy defending Jefferson the slave owning racist rapist.

On the issue you took great annoyance with allow me to quote myself on: "I'm painting the whole Democratic thrust, of which ultimately you are a member of, as hypocritical. Sorry if you don't like it but it is true. If you condemn them for their hypocrisy too then that is good."
Anyway so I have to find someone who protested the statues being taken down who isn't a Nazi? Is Dinesh D'Souza a Nazi? Well I suppose he is of Indian stock and the swastika is Indian so I suppose there is that Nazi connection.

Back to the main topic, what purity you ask. None of the guys you are defending believed black people were equal to whites, even less so than Longstreet and other former Confederates I have been defending as from what can be seen considering those at least went on to work with black people and treat them fairer. You can say they weren't 100% for equality, no shit, so was no one in the Union and ages after. There is a reason after being freed black people were still treated like garbage. Yet Longstreet and his type of Confederate is uniquely guilty of this? Get out of here.

Excuse me? You take something comparing Longstreet and Jefferson and bring up Lincoln? Really? Just makes you look like you can't adequately argue your case that you have to bring in someone completely unrelated. Nothing new considering how many times you have gone to the well of Lee previously when I was talking Longstreet.

Oh this is rich, the reaches that people will go for a violent racist slave owning rapist paedophile. Let me just tear this illusion you have built for yourself down real quick.

1: You'll have to prove financial first. All I can find is he paid his slaves in France... which he was forced to do as he would be arrested otherwise. Second the whole "allowing to grow gardens and keep chickens" thing? Something the cruellest of slave owners on the Caribbean islands did too. They would do it to keep their costs down and have their slaves actually survive so they could work, not out of benevolence. Jefferson was a greedy !@#$ so it is no surprise if he allowed that to keep his upkeep down.
2: The claim that it corrupts master and slave alike is a "woe are us white masters". The proper statement is that slavery is bad because slavery is !@#$ing bad. Not a "sure slavery is bad for the slave... but have you ever thought of us masters?"
3: Stopping importation (you mention his failure but he later would get it) is not the same as stopping slavery. Why did he not put forward an attempt to free all the slaves straight up. Perhaps you might say it would surely fail? And? Had he done that he would certainly gain some good points on the issue... but he didn't, because he was a racist greedy man. That is the prime reason he put forward the banning of importation of slaves and not freeing them. If he had to free his slaves his already bad money situation would have gotten even worse. However... even that is no valid excuse if you wish to use it. Of course slave owners were going to lose money on releasing slaves, that was not unique to Jefferson.
4: You leave out the racist policy of "Make America White Again" by deporting black Americans, sorry, I meant giving them a helping hand with colonisation of darkie lands.

So getting shot defending black civil rights and avoiding a massacre like the one the White League had previously done that claimed the lives of 150 black folk is not something? Alright I'll name another I suppose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mahone

"In 1860, Mahone owned 7 African-American slaves: 3 male (ages 13, 4, 2), 4 female (ages 45, 24, 11, 1). Nevertheless, during the Civil War and after, he showed an empathy for former slaves that was atypical for the times, and worked diligently for their fair treatment and education."

"After his unsuccessful bid for governor in 1877, he became the leader of the Readjuster Party, a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and African-Americans seeking a reduction in Virginia's prewar debt, and an appropriate allocation made to the former portion of the state that constituted the new State of West Virginia.[18] In 1881, Mahone led the successful effort to elect the Readjuster candidate William E. Cameron as the next governor, and he himself as a United States Senator.[19]"

Speaking of that party:

"The party was led by Harrison H. Riddleberger of Woodstock, an attorney, and William Mahone, a former Confederate general who was president of several railroads. Mahone was a major force in Virginia politics from around 1870 until 1883, when the Readjusters lost control to white Democrats.[1]"

What of his honours you may ask:

"In 2017, following the violence at the Unite the Right rally around the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, University of Chicago history professor Jane Dailey noted that Mahone remains largely uncommemorated, and indeed unremembered, today despite his military career and the high esteem in which Lee held him as a possible successor. After the end of his political career, resurgent white Democrats governing Virginia had branded him and other white members of the Readjuster Party autocratic race traitors, and as late as the 1940s Mahone's memory was invoked to besmirch political opponents. Dailey speculates that in the process they deliberately downplayed Mahone's role in the war in order to obscure the progressive policies of the Readjusters during Reconstruction.[22]"

So let me get this straight... the Confederates who worked on making things better... you are blaming for Jim Crow and the like? Really now? The guys who held the racist white Democrats back? The men who for this deed were branded race traitors and not honoured? Seems like you are marching in step with those racist white Democrats of the past. They'll be the ones agreeing with you that they deserve nothing.

Oh boy. First you're not a Nationalist and hate it so for you to make such a statement is automatic nonsense. Second Washington and the rest were traitors against their own country too, the difference being the war they were involved in. Third... what they shouldn't be doing? Change for the better you mean? Look at these terrible racists of the Confederacy here. They stayed heavily racist and helped make it so black people lived like garbage for a long time after. They were honoured heavily with statues and even if you somehow tear them all down (unlikely) they will still be held up as heroes by a lot of people. Now look at these people who went on to do good and positive things. They were not honoured and were instead smeared heavily, and regardless of successes they may have had they were downplayed to a footnote. See children. The good Confederates kept hate in their heart and were loved for it. The bad Confederates tried to work with black people *laugh*, what losers.

Doktor Avalanche · September 13, 2017

I love the smell of Revisionist History in the morning!

All this talk of people being reprehensible, amoral, despicable racists and outright traitors is wrong.

The fact is most people, even abolitionists, were racists. It was a product of the times, and to take our modern ideals and slap them all over our history is just as reprehensible as referring to Lee as some monster when in fact he was acting on the common-conscience of the day. By calling all those who fought for the South traitors and racists is "pot meet kettle."

Much of the North maintained racist ideals in their communities- maintaining segregation laws and such. By our standards today, instead of targeting the South, target all of society back then instead, otherwise you are rewriting history. Stalin and company liked doing that.

ComradeMilton · September 13, 2017

Making war on your own country is pretty much as treasonable as it gets. CSA involvement was an option exercised by those who served rather than working for their country to defeat the CSA. No pot/kettle thing is really present. Stalin was extremely uncommunicative during the American Civil War.

Caecus · September 13, 2017

8 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I should be careful of sounding like a racist? Me? Not the guy defending Jefferson the slave owning racist rapist.

Yeah, because you want to keep up statues of a racist rebel for no logically sound reason at all. At least when I defend Jefferson, there is substance behind it.

8 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Back to the main topic, what purity you ask. None of the guys you are defending believed black people were equal to whites, even less so than Longstreet and other former Confederates I have been defending as from what can be seen considering those at least went on to work with black people and treat them fairer. You can say they weren't 100% for equality, no shit, so was no one in the Union and ages after.

You obviously haven't heard of the 13th and 14th amendment. It was the post-war south that tried to worm their way around the constitution, not the North.

8 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Excuse me? You take something comparing Longstreet and Jefferson and bring up Lincoln? Really? Just makes you look like you can't adequately argue your case that you have to bring in someone completely unrelated. Nothing new considering how many times you have gone to the well of Lee previously when I was talking Longstreet.

Well, we are talking about people we put on a pedestal. Longstreet is a far cry from what Lincoln was. It's not an unrelated argument, it's your entire argument. You've already lost on Lee, and now you are trying to justify putting Longstreet (admittedly, one of the more palatable Confederate leaders, but that's a low bar) on a pedestal. And I'm saying that he doesn't deserve to stand next to Lincoln.

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Oh this is rich, the reaches that people will go for a violent racist slave owning rapist paedophile. Let me just tear this illusion you have built for yourself down real quick.

1. I love how you ask me to prove this with more specifics, when in the next paragraph, you quote this: "In 1860, Mahone owned 7 African-American slaves: 3 male (ages 13, 4, 2), 4 female (ages 45, 24, 11, 1). Nevertheless, during the Civil War and after, he showed an empathy for former slaves that was atypical for the times, and worked diligently for their fair treatment and education."

2. Is that what he was saying? Or are you extrapolating your facts? It says that he thought slavery was harmful to slave and master, did it say that he tried to play the victim card? I can see you are being rather loose with your facts.

3. If you knew anything about American history, you would have known that it was a sound idea given the political situation and the expectations that slavery was financially bankrupt as it was morally. The only reason why slavery continued into the 19th century was because of cotton. Otherwise, with the importation ban, slavery would have died without pissing off the Southern states. And yes, I consider that action to be a lot more than taking up arms to defend slavery. This point here should end this debate. Jefferson easily did more to help black people than any confederate leader. But that's not the reason why we celebrate Jefferson and put him on a pedestal.

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

So getting shot defending black civil rights and avoiding a massacre like the one the White League had previously done that claimed the lives of 150 black folk is not something? Alright I'll name another I suppose.

He wasn't defending black civil rights, he was putting down a riot. And you are still ignoring the fact that he didn't think black people were equal and wanted to use the Reconstruction government to restore the antebellum racial hierarchy. But yeah, keep ignoring the points that refute your narrative that Longstreet was a champion of black rights and deserve to be put on a pedestal.

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mahone

Finally, you used your google ability to find that one obscure person. Now google me this, does he have a statue up somewhere? Let's just pretend that this one person has any redeeming qualities for what he chose to do in the Civil War. Where is his statues?

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

So let me get this straight... the Confederates who worked on making things better... you are blaming for Jim Crow and the like? Really now? The guys who held the racist white Democrats back? The men who for this deed were branded race traitors and not honoured? Seems like you are marching in step with those racist white Democrats of the past. They'll be the ones agreeing with you that they deserve nothing.

Which Confederates doing what exactly? Go google your shit before posting some nonsense. There isn't any Confederates advocating for the enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendment. Oh, sorry, your one guy Mahone led a "coalition" that included black people.

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Oh boy. First you're not a Nationalist and hate it so for you to make such a statement is automatic nonsense. Second Washington and the rest were traitors against their own country too, the difference being the war they were involved in. Third... what they shouldn't be doing? Change for the better you mean? Look at these terrible racists of the Confederacy here. They stayed heavily racist and helped make it so black people lived like garbage for a long time after. They were honoured heavily with statues and even if you somehow tear them all down (unlikely) they will still be held up as heroes by a lot of people. Now look at these people who went on to do good and positive things. They were not honoured and were instead smeared heavily, and regardless of successes they may have had they were downplayed to a footnote. See children. The good Confederates kept hate in their heart and were loved for it. The bad Confederates tried to work with black people *laugh*, what losers.

I've already gone over this, so let me get it into your thick head:

The American Revolution is different from the Civil War. The American Revolution was fought on the basis of equal representation in the governing body, of which, the British colonies did not have in the English Parliament. The Civil War was a rebellion from states that had equal representation in their governing body, but chose to violently withdraw from that organization to preserve slavery. Those statues were mistakes, built during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights era as icons of social oppression.

Caecus · September 13, 2017

10 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Back to the main topic, what purity you ask.

I think you are getting off track, to be honest. Responding to your wall texts that are only tangentially related to the topic is tiring. I've simplified my argument here for you:

1. People who should be glorified on statues are people who contributed to our country and have shown moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation.

2. Confederate leaders have not contributed to our country and have shown no moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation. Ergo, they do not deserve statues of themselves.

For your defense of keeping up these statues to be effective, you must prove one of these two statements to be false. So far, your arguments have not addressed what (if any) contributions have the Confederate leaders made to America, and what (if any) moral leadership they displayed in the republic's darkest hour. Your strongest argument is to attack #1, since we do have statues of other slave owners. In which case, you either agree with the statement that statues should be of people with flawless (or less flawed) moral leadership (and thus come to the same conclusion that Confederate statues should come down) or you think the statues should not be about who contributed to our country and have shown moral leadership.

If the latter is the case, by what standard should we put up statues of people? Who deserve to be on a pedestal and why? I've already made my argument about how American leadership is moral before it is martial (assuming martial is the only quality trait worth mentioning in Confederate leaders).

Rozalia · September 13, 2017

5 hours ago, Caecus said:

Yeah, because you want to keep up statues of a racist rebel for no logically sound reason at all. At least when I defend Jefferson, there is substance behind it.

You obviously haven't heard of the 13th and 14th amendment. It was the post-war south that tried to worm their way around the constitution, not the North.

Well, we are talking about people we put on a pedestal. Longstreet is a far cry from what Lincoln was. It's not an unrelated argument, it's your entire argument. You've already lost on Lee, and now you are trying to justify putting Longstreet (admittedly, one of the more palatable Confederate leaders, but that's a low bar) on a pedestal. And I'm saying that he doesn't deserve to stand next to Lincoln.

1. I love how you ask me to prove this with more specifics, when in the next paragraph, you quote this: "In 1860, Mahone owned 7 African-American slaves: 3 male (ages 13, 4, 2), 4 female (ages 45, 24, 11, 1). Nevertheless, during the Civil War and after, he showed an empathy for former slaves that was atypical for the times, and worked diligently for their fair treatment and education."

2. Is that what he was saying? Or are you extrapolating your facts? It says that he thought slavery was harmful to slave and master, did it say that he tried to play the victim card? I can see you are being rather loose with your facts.

3. If you knew anything about American history, you would have known that it was a sound idea given the political situation and the expectations that slavery was financially bankrupt as it was morally. The only reason why slavery continued into the 19th century was because of cotton. Otherwise, with the importation ban, slavery would have died without pissing off the Southern states. And yes, I consider that action to be a lot more than taking up arms to defend slavery. This point here should end this debate. Jefferson easily did more to help black people than any confederate leader. But that's not the reason why we celebrate Jefferson and put him on a pedestal.

He wasn't defending black civil rights, he was putting down a riot. And you are still ignoring the fact that he didn't think black people were equal and wanted to use the Reconstruction government to restore the antebellum racial hierarchy. But yeah, keep ignoring the points that refute your narrative that Longstreet was a champion of black rights and deserve to be put on a pedestal.

Finally, you used your google ability to find that one obscure person. Now google me this, does he have a statue up somewhere? Let's just pretend that this one person has any redeeming qualities for what he chose to do in the Civil War. Where is his statues?

Which Confederates doing what exactly? Go google your shit before posting some nonsense. There isn't any Confederates advocating for the enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendment. Oh, sorry, your one guy Mahone led a "coalition" that included black people.

I've already gone over this, so let me get it into your thick head:

The American Revolution is different from the Civil War. The American Revolution was fought on the basis of equal representation in the governing body, of which, the British colonies did not have in the English Parliament. The Civil War was a rebellion from states that had equal representation in their governing body, but chose to violently withdraw from that organization to preserve slavery. Those statues were mistakes, built during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights era as icons of social oppression.

Who cares about substance? Who cares about context? Who cares about reality? Who cares about reason? When you throw all these things out in your campaign then be prepared to have it thrown back in your face.

Lol. You think that means anything. Black people were still treated like garbage wherever you went in America.

Lost? So not bothering with going round and round on that guy means I lost? I'm the one actually being reasonable here by stating that alright, your view has some merit so lets see if you can meet in the middle. You have been failing in that constantly by replying with extremist thought. They must all go, nothing can excuse it... then that goes for the likes of Jefferson too.

1: Excuse me? You want me to prove William Mahone's good treatment of black people? His party, the Readjuster party. Now you prove that outside that time in France where he was forced to, that Jefferson paid his slaves in money. You know, the greedy Jefferson.

2: I would say that to you. Lee himself said "I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race". These racists love to state that slavery was hard for the white masters too. In Lee's case he is a bad man but in Jefferson's it somehow shows that he is good. Don't make me laugh. Let me guess, you're now argue that Lee used slightly different language as he went further and said for certain it was worse for the white man unlike Jefferson who kept it at a vague corruption (I can guess who he'd say got corrupted more if asked).

3: Jefferson's view on the matter was literally to "Make America White Again" by deporting all those black people. The Nazis who want the same thing as that also don't want black slaves in America, are they progressive thinkers too like you seem to want to make Jefferson out to be? Man wasn't progressive on the issue in his own time.
Wait... what? Jefferson the racist slave owning rapist paedophile did more for black people in his policies to MAWA? More then the Confederate who got shot for black civil rights. The Confederate who ran a party that accepted black Americans and fought for their interests? Please.

Was wondering when you'd bring out that gun. I suppose preventing an event like the previous where 150 black people got killed doesn't count for anything. The Democratic White League were just rioters, not racially charged in any way I suppose.

... Seriously? How can you miss the point so heavily? Don't you fancy yourself quite smart? He has like... a pillar to him at the site of a famous battle he took part in and that is it. No statues as far as I know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-confederate-general-who-was-erased-from-history_us_599b3747e4b06a788a2af43e

When the Huffington post is putting forward a less extreme and stupid view than you... got to take a step back and rethink mate. The last bit is quite strong in how the white racist democrats of the past have bent history to their will. Even as it is destroyed they can be happy at least that people still forget the likes of the Confederates who actually did good things. Even when all the statues are gone those Confederates at this rate will remain a tiny footnote while Lee and others will still be heavily known. You don't seem to understand that Lee and others having mountains of statues while guys like Mahone got basically nothing is wrong.

For solidarity you should be wanting statues of men like Longstreet and Mahone to replace some of those taken down of Lee and others. Instead you're willing to let the racist white democratics win on the subject it seems.

Caecus · September 14, 2017

5 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Who cares about substance? Who cares about context? Who cares about reality? Who cares about reason? When you throw all these things out in your campaign then be prepared to have it thrown back in your face.

Lol. You think that means anything. Black people were still treated like garbage wherever you went in America.

Lost? So not bothering with going round and round on that guy means I lost? I'm the one actually being reasonable here by stating that alright, your view has some merit so lets see if you can meet in the middle. You have been failing in that constantly by replying with extremist thought. They must all go, nothing can excuse it... then that goes for the likes of Jefferson too.

1: Excuse me? You want me to prove William Mahone's good treatment of black people? His party, the Readjuster party. Now you prove that outside that time in France where he was forced to, that Jefferson paid his slaves in money. You know, the greedy Jefferson.

2: I would say that to you. Lee himself said "I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race". These racists love to state that slavery was hard for the white masters too. In Lee's case he is a bad man but in Jefferson's it somehow shows that he is good. Don't make me laugh. Let me guess, you're now argue that Lee used slightly different language as he went further and said for certain it was worse for the white man unlike Jefferson who kept it at a vague corruption (I can guess who he'd say got corrupted more if asked).

3: Jefferson's view on the matter was literally to "Make America White Again" by deporting all those black people. The Nazis who want the same thing as that also don't want black slaves in America, are they progressive thinkers too like you seem to want to make Jefferson out to be? Man wasn't progressive on the issue in his own time.
Wait... what? Jefferson the racist slave owning rapist paedophile did more for black people in his policies to MAWA? More then the Confederate who got shot for black civil rights. The Confederate who ran a party that accepted black Americans and fought for their interests? Please.

Was wondering when you'd bring out that gun. I suppose preventing an event like the previous where 150 black people got killed doesn't count for anything. The Democratic White League were just rioters, not racially charged in any way I suppose.

... Seriously? How can you miss the point so heavily? Don't you fancy yourself quite smart? He has like... a pillar to him at the site of a famous battle he took part in and that is it. No statues as far as I know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-confederate-general-who-was-erased-from-history_us_599b3747e4b06a788a2af43e

When the Huffington post is putting forward a less extreme and stupid view than you... got to take a step back and rethink mate. The last bit is quite strong in how the white racist democrats of the past have bent history to their will. Even as it is destroyed they can be happy at least that people still forget the likes of the Confederates who actually did good things. Even when all the statues are gone those Confederates at this rate will remain a tiny footnote while Lee and others will still be heavily known. You don't seem to understand that Lee and others having mountains of statues while guys like Mahone got basically nothing is wrong.

For solidarity you should be wanting statues of men like Longstreet and Mahone to replace some of those taken down of Lee and others. Instead you're willing to let the racist white democratics win on the subject it seems.

You have a bad habit of going off on tangents that don't relate to the topic at hand. Get your head in the game, son. I've already defeated you on Lee, if you can't follow my argument, you should give up.

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

I think you are getting off track, to be honest. Responding to your wall texts that are only tangentially related to the topic is tiring. I've simplified my argument here for you:

1. People who should be glorified on statues are people who contributed to our country and have shown moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation.

2. Confederate leaders have not contributed to our country and have shown no moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation. Ergo, they do not deserve statues of themselves.

For your defense of keeping up these statues to be effective, you must prove one of these two statements to be false. So far, your arguments have not addressed what (if any) contributions have the Confederate leaders made to America, and what (if any) moral leadership they displayed in the republic's darkest hour. Your strongest argument is to attack #1, since we do have statues of other slave owners. In which case, you either agree with the statement that statues should be of people with flawless (or less flawed) moral leadership (and thus come to the same conclusion that Confederate statues should come down) or you think the statues should not be about who contributed to our country and have shown moral leadership.

If the latter is the case, by what standard should we put up statues of people? Who deserve to be on a pedestal and why? I've already made my argument about how American leadership is moral before it is martial (assuming martial is the only quality trait worth mentioning in Confederate leaders).

Edited September 14, 2017 by Caecus

Rozalia · September 14, 2017

Really now, just going to ignore everything. Sorry I'm not making an argument you already prepared for and instead talking about the centre ground of instead honouring other Confederates who were ignored. The argument I made against taking the statues down which includes Lee was the one with the slope. The one I've made in the past several posts has Lee and the rest as completely irrelevant to the matter (so take them down, whatever), simply arguing that some Confederates some of which are lucky to have even 1 monument to them should be far more honoured then they are for the good they did, good which you deem irrelevant because Democrats came in and crapped on it bringing about Jim Crow and so forth.

Speaking of the slope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41258592

One month after it was vandalised with some red paint (signifying blood). Wonder when the beheading happens.

However the slope is easy for you to respond to, they could behead the statue tomorrow and you'll still claim it is all quite under control. I prefer seeing you squirm to defend a racist slave owning rapist paedophile instead while attacking Confederates like Mahone who politically worked to help black people as scum. Yeah I get it, you have a big hard on for Jefferson as he was a founder. Get over it.

Caecus · September 14, 2017

Just now, Rozalia said:

Really now, just going to ignore everything. Sorry I'm not making an argument you already prepared for and instead talking about the centre ground of instead honouring other Confederates who were ignored. The argument I made against taking the statues down which includes Lee was the one with the slope. The one I've made in the past several posts has Lee and the rest as completely irrelevant to the matter (so take them down, whatever), simply arguing that some Confederates some of which are lucky to have even 1 monument to them should be far more honoured then they are for the good they did, good which you deem irrelevant because Democrats came in and crapped on it bringing about Jim Crow and so forth.

1. People who should be glorified on statues are people who contributed to our country and have shown moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation.

2. Confederate leaders have not contributed to our country and have shown no moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation. Ergo, they do not deserve statues of themselves.

See how nothing you just said there addresses my argument? Are you even arguing to keep up confederate statues anymore?

1 minute ago, Rozalia said:

Speaking of the slope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41258592

One month after it was vandalised with some red paint (signifying blood). Wonder when the beheading happens.

However the slope is easy for you to respond to, they could behead the statue tomorrow and you'll still claim it is all quite under control. I prefer seeing you squirm to defend a racist slave owning rapist paedophile instead while attacking Confederates like Mahone who politically worked to help black people as scum. Yeah I get it, you have a big hard on for Jefferson as he was a founder. Get over it.

See? This is called derailing the topic.

Caecus · September 14, 2017

2 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

The CSA was the country. It was a union of states, that's like saying it is treasonous to try and leave the EU. Since the Civil War, the USA's perception of itself has changed, but people then identified more with their states than they did with the USA. Regardless, the war was mutual. Lincoln would have declared on the CSA in order to retain the union, as a divided states of America is only half as strong.

Why did people identify more with their states than they did with the USA? Furthermore, why did only slave-holding states form the CSA?

Sectionalism developed because of slavery. People identified with their home state over their country because of their slavery status. Admittedly, there was nothing in the constitution that explicitly bars secession of states, but it was presumed that in the face of political differences, differing interests would be settled by democratic debate, not by lead slugs and bayonets. The CSA betrayed the ideals of the founding republic and used violence to enforce their political agenda. They were traitors. But don't take my word for it, ask Robert E. Lee in his private letters in 1861:

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

As for Lincoln declaring on the CSA, I wouldn't be so sure. A Civil War was extremely unpopular. It was presumed that if Lincoln would give in to the demands of the southern states, they would rejoin the Union. It was only after Fort Sumter that it became clear war was inevitable. My strongest evidence for this argument is that Lincoln only called for volunteers to man the Union army after Sumter, not a day before it.

Rozalia · September 14, 2017

21 minutes ago, Caecus said:

1. People who should be glorified on statues are people who contributed to our country and have shown moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation.

2. Confederate leaders have not contributed to our country and have shown no moral leadership worthy of the ideals of our nation. Ergo, they do not deserve statues of themselves.

See how nothing you just said there addresses my argument? Are you even arguing to keep up confederate statues anymore?

See? This is called derailing the topic.

!@#$ing hell man, just the tripe you are spitting out. First off your talk of "moral"? Completely something you defined and no one has to play by what you believe. Second... they didn't contribute anything morally? Mahone who formed a party that fought for Black American's interests (not solely obviously) and kept the racist Democrats from power (and when they got power through race hustling they stamped black Americans into the mud) didn't do anything morally upstanding? Please. Get out of here with that garbage. You don't even believe it considering your consistent defenses of that racist slave owning rapist paedophile Jefferson.

No. It's called finding a middle ground and seeing if you'll be reasonable enough to settle on it. For the purpose of doing that I straight up conceded on the issue of Lee and others who like Jefferson never changed and did anything positive for black Americans (do not be a racist and state MAWA was a good thing for black people. Straight up Nazi talk). You failed and weaken your whole position accordingly. One side wants Confederate statues up. The other doesn't. Some Confederates, who have been ignored for a long time as they were "race traitors" exist. So the middle ground is putting up more statues of those Confederates, to show that people can move past conflict and work in a positive direction like Mahone did. Are these Confederates perfect? No. You could say on the fact they fought a war as part of the Confederacy alone is a failure on their end. However post war they moved past that and did good works.

Like I have told you before. Do you really have no idea the message you're stating here? We should not demonise and mock like you have people who move past their previous wrongdoing and do good things. When you establish that when a person has done wrong that they can't move past it then what should those currently doing wrong think? Lets take the Islamists, Nazis, or whoever we have seen around here. Why should they change if we follow your view here? Change for the better to be castigated by the same people as before but now also their previous grouping which will call them a Kafir/Race Traitor/Whatever. Your view is exactly what those groups love. If you must know, the former Confederate who post-war helped black people is a powerful thing. I mentioned the Nazi who saved 200,000 Chinese before, another powerful one as to the Nazi belief the Chinese were scum and yet he put himself between the Japanese and saved those people. A recent case of someone doing good after doing bad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reformed-racist-church-donation-letter_us_5931245de4b0c242ca22c4af

Caecus · September 14, 2017

Just now, Rozalia said:

!@#$ing hell man, just the tripe you are spitting out. First off your talk of "moral"? Completely something you defined and no one has to play by what you believe. Second... they didn't contribute anything morally? Mahone who formed a party that fought for Black American's interests (not solely obviously) and kept the racist Democrats from power (and when they got power through race hustling they stamped black Americans into the mud) didn't do anything morally upstanding? Please. Get out of here with that garbage. You don't even believe it considering your consistent defenses of that racist slave owning rapist paedophile Jefferson.

No. It's called finding a middle ground and seeing if you'll be reasonable enough to settle on it. For the purpose of doing that I straight up conceded on the issue of Lee and others who like Jefferson never changed and did anything positive for black Americans (do not be a racist and state MAWA was a good thing for black people. Straight up Nazi talk). You failed and weaken your whole position accordingly. One side wants Confederate statues up. The other doesn't. Some Confederates, who have been ignored for a long time as they were "race traitors" exist. So the middle ground is putting up more statues of those Confederates, to show that people can move past conflict and work in a positive direction like Mahone did. Are these Confederates perfect? No. You could say on the fact they fought a war as part of the Confederacy alone is a failure on their end. However post war they moved past that and did good works.

Like I have told you before. Do you really have no idea the message you're stating here? We should not demonise and mock like you have people who move past their previous wrongdoing and do good things. When you establish that when a person has done wrong that they can't move past it then what should those currently doing wrong think? Lets take the Islamists, Nazis, or whoever we have seen around here. Why should they change if we follow your view here? Change for the better to be castigated by the same people as before but now also their previous grouping which will call them a Kafir/Race Traitor/Whatever. Your view is exactly what those groups love. If you must know, the former Confederate who post-war helped black people is a powerful thing. I mentioned the Nazi who saved 200,000 Chinese before, another powerful one as to the Nazi belief the Chinese were scum and yet he put himself between the Japanese and saved those people. A recent case of someone doing good after doing bad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reformed-racist-church-donation-letter_us_5931245de4b0c242ca22c4af

Oh yes. Malone contributed so much to his country! When everyone tried to divide the country in two over the issue of slavery, he fought to preserve the Union. When it was unpopular to propose that all men are created equal, he stood up against the tide of his fellow racist southerners and fought for the liberation of millions of black people. He's a real !@#$ing hero.

One !@#$ing guy. You literally spent a week and you only found one !@#$ing guy. What, is the south just going to all be statues of Malone? I'm against murder, slavery, and treason here, asking me to be on the middle ground is like asking me to find middle ground between child pornography and, well, no child pornography. Frankly, the fact that you think there is a middle ground here tells me how you don't really have a moral compass.

I don't see your argument here. Are you trying to say that when most people see a statue of Lee, they think "well, if a piece of shit like Lee can get a statue by being a piece of shit, maybe I'll stop hating brown people," ergo, we would keep up statues of him? Solid point. I can't beat that logic there.

Rozalia · September 14, 2017

8 hours ago, Caecus said:

Oh yes. Malone contributed so much to his country! When everyone tried to divide the country in two over the issue of slavery, he fought to preserve the Union. When it was unpopular to propose that all men are created equal, he stood up against the tide of his fellow racist southerners and fought for the liberation of millions of black people. He's a real !@#$ing hero.

One !@#$ing guy. You literally spent a week and you only found one !@#$ing guy. What, is the south just going to all be statues of Malone? I'm against murder, slavery, and treason here, asking me to be on the middle ground is like asking me to find middle ground between child pornography and, well, no child pornography. Frankly, the fact that you think there is a middle ground here tells me how you don't really have a moral compass.

I don't see your argument here. Are you trying to say that when most people see a statue of Lee, they think "well, if a piece of shit like Lee can get a statue by being a piece of shit, maybe I'll stop hating brown people," ergo, we would keep up statues of him? Solid point. I can't beat that logic there.

Mahone, not Malone. Repeating again that acting in a negative manner discredits you regardless of whatever good you may do, which craps on your defense of Jefferson, the racist slave owning rapist paedophile.

He is from Virginia and where his party fought elections so at the very least across that state. His company operated across two other states (Mississippi and Ohio) so I suppose you could stick him there too if you really wanted, but a far weaker case than Virginia (not that such a thing ever stopped the likes of Lee).
Anyway I do believe I brought up Longstreet (who covers South Carolina and Georgia) also so that would be 2. You have challenged me twice to find a person and I have done so, will you ask for a third now? If I do find a third will you finally concede?

Funny you should say that considering your constant defenses of a paedophile.

Again you go back to the well of Lee. As I told you, the matter of Lee is relevant for the slope argument (which is valid and true as we can see it happening right now). The argument that men like Mahone should have statues put up (you could say to replace the likes of Lee) is a separate argument and the middle ground one.

Caecus · September 14, 2017

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Mahone, not Malone. Repeating again that acting in a negative manner discredits you regardless of whatever good you may do, which craps on your defense of Jefferson, the racist slave owning rapist paedophile.

He is from Virginia and where his party fought elections so at the very least across that state. His company operated across two other states (Mississippi and Ohio) so I suppose you could stick him there too if you really wanted, but a far weaker case than Virginia (not that such a thing ever stopped the likes of Lee).
Anyway I do believe I brought up Longstreet (who covers South Carolina and Georgia) also so that would be 2. You have challenged me twice to find a person and I have done so, will you ask for a third now? If I do find a third will you finally concede?

Funny you should say that considering your constant defenses of a paedophile.

Again you go back to the well of Lee. As I told you, the matter of Lee is relevant for the slope argument (which is valid and true as we can see it happening right now). The argument that men like Mahone should have statues put up (you could say to replace the likes of Lee) is a separate argument and the middle ground one.

Malone isn't significant. None of the Confederate leaders are significant. Who gives a shit about Malone. Did you even know who Malone was before you googled him? He killed Americans to preserve slavery in an independent country. If it wasn't for the decisions of better men who actually deserve statues, he would be swinging on a rope at the end of the war, not starting his own political party.

You seem to have the memory of a goldfish. I told you that I CAN defend Jefferson, you CAN'T defend Lee. The fact that I can demonstrate Jefferson - despite being a racist slave owning rapist "paedophile" - still has some merit to having his own statue while you can't even justify Lee's existence outside of a slope argument goes to show that every time you mock me for defending Jefferson, you are only pointing out how much worse you actually are. Yes, it is funny. Funny that you can't even see that you are laughing at yourself.

The slope argument is the only thing you have. Sad. Your slope argument depends so much on everyone tossing out every amoral, treasonous thing that Lee has done. Furthermore, your slope argument assumes that only "rabid progressives" want to remove Confederate statues, despite it being advocated by practically everyone who isn't a Nazi.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/347035-house-republican-calls-for-taking-confederate-monuments-off-pedestals

I suppose that's the new standard of what it means to be a "rabid progressive": not pro-white supremacy. The people who want to keep up the statues are in the (racist) minority. It's not a coincidence that only people with accused (or sometimes, outright vocal) cases of racism still want Lee in their town square. Again, find me a moderate, not-racist history buff who wants to keep a statue of Lee so badly, that person was willing to march down the streets with a bunch of Nazis to preserve it. And why is it that only Nazis march to preserve the statues? Where is the masses of normal, non-racist people who just want to "preserve history?"

I actually like the middle ground argument proposed by the republican in the news article above. That I can live with, because we are no longer glorifying Confederate leaders. Do you agree?

Rozalia · September 14, 2017

5 hours ago, Caecus said:

Malone isn't significant. None of the Confederate leaders are significant. Who gives a shit about Malone. Did you even know who Malone was before you googled him? He killed Americans to preserve slavery in an independent country. If it wasn't for the decisions of better men who actually deserve statues, he would be swinging on a rope at the end of the war, not starting his own political party.

You seem to have the memory of a goldfish. I told you that I CAN defend Jefferson, you CAN'T defend Lee. The fact that I can demonstrate Jefferson - despite being a racist slave owning rapist "paedophile" - still has some merit to having his own statue while you can't even justify Lee's existence outside of a slope argument goes to show that every time you mock me for defending Jefferson, you are only pointing out how much worse you actually are. Yes, it is funny. Funny that you can't even see that you are laughing at yourself.

The slope argument is the only thing you have. Sad. Your slope argument depends so much on everyone tossing out every amoral, treasonous thing that Lee has done. Furthermore, your slope argument assumes that only "rabid progressives" want to remove Confederate statues, despite it being advocated by practically everyone who isn't a Nazi.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/347035-house-republican-calls-for-taking-confederate-monuments-off-pedestals

I suppose that's the new standard of what it means to be a "rabid progressive": not pro-white supremacy. The people who want to keep up the statues are in the (racist) minority. It's not a coincidence that only people with accused (or sometimes, outright vocal) cases of racism still want Lee in their town square. Again, find me a moderate, not-racist history buff who wants to keep a statue of Lee so badly, that person was willing to march down the streets with a bunch of Nazis to preserve it. And why is it that only Nazis march to preserve the statues? Where is the masses of normal, non-racist people who just want to "preserve history?"

I actually like the middle ground argument proposed by the republican in the news article above. That I can live with, because we are no longer glorifying Confederate leaders. Do you agree?

The military leaders of the Confederacy are insignificant now. The man whose party held anti-black policies back in his state until it was defeated by race hustling Democrats is insignificant. I suppose the Confederacy just wasn't that big a deal. Do you hear the stretch of nonsense you are having to go to? Ridiculous nonsense.

My sole defense of Lee if you can call it that is the slope which has been and will continue to be proven completely correct. Your attacks however have holes and they are exposed more and more the more you defend Jefferson and the more you attack those Confederates I have been bringing up. These were men who were not honoured by the racists to put minorities in their place as you were saying, but it seems it doesn't matter as you are more than willing to stomp on them too after the racists already have.
Oh and Caecus... finish your defense of Jefferson, of the Paedophilia. Don't just air quote and leave it at that... do it. Continue with your defense which is known as the you could say Muhammad defense. I wonder after you do if you'll start saying that Jefferson was a good man simply taking advantage of his property rights when he was raping.
You can't defend Jefferson which is why you keep having to try and shift talk back to Lee. Listen well, by your own words you condemn Jefferson far more than the Confederates I have brought up. If they shouldn't have statues than Jefferson who makes them look like choir boys certainly shouldn't.

So... let me get this straight... the middle ground... is giving your side on the issue everything? It seems you either don't know what the middle ground or didn't read the bit where all the statues are to be taken down and locked away in some museum somewhere.

You have asked that question before but now have rephrased it to "history buff". A pointless exercise as there are always academics out there outside the norm who take controversial/unpopular views. I'm not going to waste my time when last I answered the question you simply ignored it and later rephrased it with different criteria.

Oh and I do not believe I have called you a rabid progressive. I stated that you (and your type) are siding with them and don't know just what that unleashes. You should know that these Bernie supporting extremists (Alt-Left) don't have it in them to stop and yet you throw your lot behind them and egg them on. You think anyone is going to stop the taking down of Jefferson when they focus everything on him and then the others like Washington? You going to stand with the Nazis are you? I don't think so. You'll whine on the internet like Conservatives are now and it will happen. All because people like you didn't stand up to them in the beginning. You need to find a middle ground to cut these guys off. Surrendering to them and giving them everything they want doesn't placate them, it just makes them push further and want more. Here in Britain the effort to remove statues was nipped in the bud with great speed and ease, and those Far-Left extremists have been forced to accept it.

Oh and I notice that you didn't take me up on the "One more Confederate". You know I'd do it don't you? I'll take that as a win.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Rozalia

Caecus · September 14, 2017

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

The military leaders of the Confederacy are insignificant now. The man whose party held anti-black policies back in his state until it was defeated by race hustling Democrats is insignificant. I suppose the Confederacy just wasn't that big a deal. Do you hear the stretch of nonsense you are having to go to? Ridiculous nonsense.

Yes. They haven't contributed anything to their country, they are not significant. Idk, maybe because it's the fact that they actively fought a war to preserve slavery and divide our country, that's the reason why I don't think we should celebrate them. But that logic doesn't make any sense to you.

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

My sole defense of Lee if you can call it that is the slope which has been and will continue to be proven completely correct. Your attacks however have holes and they are exposed more and more the more you defend Jefferson and the more you attack those Confederates I have been bringing up. These were men who were not honoured by the racists to put minorities in their place as you were saying, but it seems it doesn't matter as you are more than willing to stomp on them too after the racists already have.
Oh and Caecus... finish your defense of Jefferson, of the Paedophilia. Don't just air quote and leave it at that... do it. Continue with your defense which is known as the you could say Muhammad defense. I wonder after you do if you'll start saying that Jefferson was a good man simply taking advantage of his property rights when he was raping.
You can't defend Jefferson which is why you keep having to try and shift talk back to Lee. Listen well, by your own words you condemn Jefferson far more than the Confederates I have brought up. If they shouldn't have statues than Jefferson who makes them look like choir boys certainly shouldn't.

You still don't understand do you? Both Jefferson and the Confederate leaders are racist trash. But Jefferson built this country. The Confederate leaders tried to tear it down. If you can't wrap that around your head, I can't help you.

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

So... let me get this straight... the middle ground... is giving your side on the issue everything? It seems you either don't know what the middle ground or didn't read the bit where all the statues are to be taken down and locked away in some museum somewhere.

Yeah, because I would have just melted them down and repurpose them. Putting them out of sight isn't my position, so yeah, it's a middle ground. That's ironic, you questioning my intelligence and understanding.

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

You have asked that question before but now have rephrased it to "history buff". A pointless exercise as there are always academics out there outside the norm who take controversial/unpopular views. I'm not going to waste my time when last I answered the question you simply ignored it and later rephrased it with different criteria.

And yet I still don't see academics marching en-masse to defend their beloved statues. How come only Nazis and White Supremacists march to defend statues of people who fought a war so that white people can own black people like cattle? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question.

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Oh and I do not believe I have called you a rabid progressive. I stated that you (and your type) are siding with them and don't know just what that unleashes. You should know that these Bernie supporting extremists (Alt-Left) don't have it in them to stop and yet you throw your lot behind them and egg them on. You think anyone is going to stop the taking down of Jefferson when they focus everything on him and then the others like Washington? You going to stand with the Nazis are you? I don't think so. You'll whine on the internet like Conservatives are now and it will happen. All because people like you didn't stand up to them in the beginning. You need to find a middle ground to cut these guys off. Surrendering to them and giving them everything they want doesn't placate them, it just makes them push further and want more. Here in Britain the effort to remove statues was nipped in the bud with great speed and ease, and those Far-Left extremists have been forced to accept it.

That's like saying we shouldn't kill Nazis because once all the Nazis are dead, anyone who isn't a Nazi is next. Your slope argument is ignoring what Lee and the rest of the Confederate leaders did, and why they did it. I'm not saying you are racist, I'm just saying that the way you ignore these facts is something that Nazis do to whitewash the Confederacy. You should try and reconcile what is worse: keeping up statues of racist slaveowners who have no reason being on a pedestal (even you lost on that), or the possibility that Jefferson's statue might be taken down (someone you have called a 'racist paedophile rapist').

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Oh and I notice that you didn't take me up on the "One more Confederate". You know I'd do it don't you? I'll take that as a win.

You can't win at anything here, I've been kicking you around like a football all week. You've lost on Lee, you had to scour the internet to try and find a single Confederate leader who was decently palatable (who doesn't even have a statue up in the first place to take down), and you still haven't addressed the issue that your slope argument ignores everything amoral about keeping up a statue of Lee. You can't take anything as a win.

Rozalia · September 15, 2017

40 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Yes. They haven't contributed anything to their country, they are not significant. Idk, maybe because it's the fact that they actively fought a war to preserve slavery and divide our country, that's the reason why I don't think we should celebrate them. But that logic doesn't make any sense to you.

Holding back Jim Crow in the state for a great many years isn't contributing anything. Right. You sure you aren't a Nazi?

47 minutes ago, Caecus said:

You still don't understand do you? Both Jefferson and the Confederate leaders are racist trash. But Jefferson built this country. The Confederate leaders tried to tear it down. If you can't wrap that around your head, I can't help you.

Finish. Your. Defense. Or are you too ashamed to actually say it?

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Yeah, because I would have just melted them down and repurpose them. Putting them out of sight isn't my position, so yeah, it's a middle ground. That's ironic, you questioning my intelligence and understanding.

Except the result is the same. The middle ground is to look fairly at history and while concluding that Confederates like Lee are inexcusable. Some men post war did good and for that deserve to be the ones honoured. As I have said twice now and you have refused to even address it, China honours a Nazi for doing good. There is nothing strange in celebrating the good that a person went on to do. Lee and such don't have that. They fought the war and then were mean old men stuck in their ways. There is a clear difference between Confederates like him and the ones I'm bringing up.

55 minutes ago, Caecus said:

And yet I still don't see academics marching en-masse to defend their beloved statues. How come only Nazis and White Supremacists march to defend statues of people who fought a war so that white people can own black people like cattle? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question.

Marching now? You asked me to find an Academic who would defend the statues which I told you was stupid as there are always those types about, and I wasn't going to bother as you had shown dishonesty over a previous asking. Now suddenly they got to be marching too. Give me a break with this dishonest crap.

57 minutes ago, Caecus said:

That's like saying we shouldn't kill Nazis because once all the Nazis are dead, anyone who isn't a Nazi is next. Your slope argument is ignoring what Lee and the rest of the Confederate leaders did, and why they did it. I'm not saying you are racist, I'm just saying that the way you ignore these facts is something that Nazis do to whitewash the Confederacy. You should try and reconcile what is worse: keeping up statues of racist slaveowners who have no reason being on a pedestal (even you lost on that), or the possibility that Jefferson's statue might be taken down (someone you have called a 'racist paedophile rapist').

You can't win at anything here, I've been kicking you around like a football all week. You've lost on Lee, you had to scour the internet to try and find a single Confederate leader who was decently palatable (who doesn't even have a statue up in the first place to take down), and you still haven't addressed the issue that your slope argument ignores everything amoral about keeping up a statue of Lee. You can't take anything as a win.

... This is just getting personally offensive at this point. I have for the sake of understanding conceded the issue of Lee and the others so I could talk on a part of the whole issue that doesn't get talked about enough. I don't expect the Progressives in a frenzy to care and the side protecting the statues certainly don't care either, but someone more moderate on the issue is supposed to be open to these things.

To take this gesture in good faith to you as a loss is damaging to any reasonable conversation as it promotes people never conceding on anything and just arguing forever and ever with the same garbage. On the issue of Jefferson because you have chosen to use Progressive arguments I'm simply throwing them back at you over him. Don't like it? Don't use Progressive arguments then.

Now for these guys not even having statues to take down... that is the bloody point how do you not understand this. Your narrative has been that the statues of Lee and others was put up to show minorities who was boss. Personally I'd say some but not but for the purpose of understanding I conceded this to you to see if you would act reasonable in turn and you have of course, not done so. As I said previously, no racist southern boy back in the day wanted to put up a statue of these men (you say 1 but there are at least 3 and I'm sure there are others) as they were "race traitors" who opposed them and in the case of Mahone held Jim Crow in his state back for a good number of years. Longstreet and others also didn't defend the war as over state rights and stated that it was over slavery, and if it wasn't then they didn't know what it was over. Then why did they fight then if not for slavery you ask? One of the men I found directly addresses that. He was a soldier and a soldier fights for him homeland (state) right or wrong. Personally he was against seceding and slavery but a soldier fights while the politics are up to the politicians.

Putting up statues of these men would be the ultimate victory over the racists. For even if you destroy every statue of Lee and company the racists will at least have the victory that they stopped the "race traitors" from being honoured with monuments first by them and then by you. That they successfully reduced these men to footnotes while Lee was elevated. Why don't you try and put yourself in other shoes and in a reasonable manner tell me how it goes. Lets say you were an American who happened to be black. You would object to a statue of a Confederate who post war did good things for black Americans and protected them from the racist Democrats? You would spit on that? People can go on to do good things. People can be forgiven. People can be celebrated for their redemption. Those men didn't have to do what they did. They could have just been racist Democrats instead and likely would have had better lives and would have like a million monuments to them like the rest.

Caecus · September 15, 2017

44 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

You would object to a statue of a Confederate who post war did good things for black Americans and protected them from the racist Democrats?

Remind me what "good things" Lee did again? Also, none of the Confederate leaders you mentioned as doing "good things" have statues.

Presuming you aren't ignoring the fact that they are Confederate leaders who fought for slavery, why would anyone want to keep a statue of them? There are so many other people who deserve a statue more than any of these Confederate leaders. The fact that you are so insistent on getting a Confederate statue while ignoring their crimes tells a whole lot about your views on what is considered moral and right.

Rozalia · September 15, 2017

4 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Remind me what "good things" Lee did again? Also, none of the Confederate leaders you mentioned as doing "good things" have statues.

Presuming you aren't ignoring the fact that they are Confederate leaders who fought for slavery, why would anyone want to keep a statue of them? There are so many other people who deserve a statue more than any of these Confederate leaders. The fact that you are so insistent on getting a Confederate statue while ignoring their crimes tells a whole lot about your views on what is considered moral and right.

Back to Lee again, just can't help yourself. You know full well I didn't say that about Lee . And yeah, we're talking in the here and now, of putting up a statue of guys like the ones I have brought up as the others come down. As for why they don't have statues... already answered that but can you not remember what you stated at the beginning of all this as to why the statues were put up? My response to you then was some certainly but I wouldn't say all which is a reasonable response. Now I've been repeating your statement back to you and you're just dismissing it as irrelevant. So were you lying before or do you admit that these men weren't honoured as they deserved because the racists took issue with the fact they were "race traitors" due to being "negro lovers" and all that. Which is it? And if you admit the racists didn't honour them for their good deeds then why not shouldn't their statues be put up in states like Virginia for the good they did there? I'm here telling you sure on taking down Lee and you're just talking some crazed nonsense at my reasonable middle ground argument. I expect this from the Alt-Left, not from guys outside their camp.

Says the guy who has been defending a racist slave owning rapist paedophile. Does that say a lot about you? Bloody hell. And yes, those Confederates like Mahone do seem to me have done positive things in their state post war worth being honoured for.

Confederate Streets and Monuments

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thalmor

WISD0MTREE

Caecus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Important Information