Confederate Memorial Hall deemed offensive

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That is correct. General Lee owned no slaves and when his wife inherited her father's plantation he immediately set about freeing every slave who worked on it. In 1856, he said: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Many Union generals only freed their slaves a dozen years later.

[Firestarter 0]

Almost one year later, it's obvious that Kilcrease has bought into the idiotic PC dogma infiltrating our country. I hope the UDC will appeal this terrible decision.

 

- CNN story

[Guest MikeSC]

That is correct. General Lee owned no slaves and when his wife inherited her father's plantation he immediately set about freeing every slave who worked on it. In 1856, he said: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Many Union generals only freed their slaves a dozen years later.

Heck, how can he explain away that 4 states in the Union were slave-holding states and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't impact THEM at all.

 

Let's not pretend that the North fought the war to free slaves.

-=Mike

...And the South was wrong beyond words to hold slaves --- but I still wonder: Where is the beef with the Africans who SOLD them to the whites in the first place?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

While, I don't believe the North's motives behind the war were as completly altruistic as freeing the slaves, I do believe slavery's role in augmenting tensions between the North and South is starting to be overlooked. It's now fashionable to downplay slavery to a laughable degree. The fact of the matter is state's rights is an abstract political concept. No one would go out and die for that. But slavery was a visible representation of both the North and South's continuing divergence economically.

[Guest MikeSC]

While, I don't believe the North's motives behind the war were as completly altruistic as freeing the slaves, I do believe slavery's role in augmenting tensions between the North and South is starting to be overlooked. It's now fashionable to downplay slavery to a laughable degree. The fact of the matter is state's rights is an abstract political concept. No one would go out and die for that. But slavery was a visible representation of both the North and South's continuing divergence economically.

Actually, the more I read about it (I don't much care for the Civil War, but I do try and read about things), the more I realize that slavery WAS the main issue.

 

Was state's rights an issue? Arguably.

 

But, the Confederate Constitution was almost IDENTICAL to the U.S Constitution. I mean, almost friggin' identical.

 

Slavery caused the tension --- but the North wasn't exactly good and pure. Lord knows factory workers weren't any better off than slaves.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

While, I don't believe the North's motives behind the war were as completly altruistic as freeing the slaves, I do believe slavery's role in augmenting tensions between the North and South is starting to be overlooked. It's now fashionable to downplay slavery to a laughable degree. The fact of the matter is state's rights is an abstract political concept. No one would go out and die for that. But slavery was a visible representation of both the North and South's continuing divergence economically.

Actually, the more I read about it (I don't much care for the Civil War, but I do try and read about things), the more I realize that slavery WAS the main issue.

 

Was state's rights an issue? Arguably.

 

But, the Confederate Constitution was almost IDENTICAL to the U.S Constitution. I mean, almost friggin' identical.

 

Slavery caused the tension --- but the North wasn't exactly good and pure. Lord knows factory workers weren't any better off than slaves.

-=Mike

Hell, after the war the Irish immigrants were WORSE off then the former slaves. At least with sharecropping you didn't die at 30 from Black Lung. Plus, discrimination against Catholics in the major cities of the Northeast was just as bad.

[Guest deadbeater]

But the Catholics and other immigrants can pass for White, for the skin privilege.

[Guest BDC]

In a related note, the Kentucky Capitol building houses statues of both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis facing one another in the rotunda. There has been a suit filed in an attempt to get the Jefferson Davis statue removed.

 

So, what we have here is basically an attempt to IGNORE history. Let's just erase that the Civil War ever existed. Then Abraham Lincoln can be an unimportant president and the argument over reparations can die quickly.

 

I'm slightly bent out of shape about the whole thing simply because of the kneejerk ignorance of it. "Oh my God he was associated with the South! OFFENSIVE! REPRESSIVE! ACLU!"

[MrRant 0]

But the statue probably offends about 5 people so we have to make sure those 5 people don't feel bad. Can't have anyone feel bad, now can we?

[Lando Griffin 0]

and the argument over reparations can die quickly.

Any arguments about reparations SHOULD die quickly.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, what we have here is basically an attempt to IGNORE history.  Let's just erase that the Civil War ever existed.  Then Abraham Lincoln can be an unimportant president and the argument over reparations can die quickly.

I think the idea behind the suits is that the Confederate side should be spoken of as villains instead of heroes because they were essentially fighting to own slaves.

 

I guess you could make a building with FDR on one side and Hitler on the other, but hey that's not the same thing because the Nazis weren't Americans and for some stupid reason it's considered heroic for Americans to die in battle even if they're on the wrong side. And CERTAINLY it's heroic for Americans to die in battle for their leadership's ignorance. That's why we have soldiers dying in battle right now in a sense.

 

EDITED: Before I get torn apart for that controversial statements, I'm not questioning whether those overseas are heroic, there's no question, but whether the reasons they're over there really are as heroic as they're being drummed up to be. These tributes aren't to those who died as much as they are people like the guy in the statue opposite Lincoln being sued about

[Vyce 0]

The war was about so much more than just slavery.

 

But very few people acknowledge that, so anything associated with the South or the Confederacy during that period gets treated almost on the same level as the Nazis.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Also, you have to consider the fact that most Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves. Most of the southern slave owners didn't fight, and if they did, usually as officers or in other similar capacties.

 

Let's not even start the argument about the myth that the war was fought to free slaves. I doubt most soldiers on the northern side really cared about whether slaves were free or not. It's not like if you were opposed to slavery you automatically supported the black race. Hell, even Abraham Lincoln suggested a theory early in his first term about giving an island in the Caribbean to ex-slaves and freedmen.

[Ripper 0]

As cute as it is to say that the war was about so much more than slavery, bottom line, it was what the war stood for.

 

Yes, the South was making a push for states rights and blah blah blah. But they chose slavery as their line in the sand and what they wouldn't give up. That was the cause that they chose to stand behind so it will be remembered for that. They might have had different reasons to go to war (yes most of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves) but their cause was to still to fight for the right to own slaves and its no way around that.

 

The celebration of the confederacy still remains to be one of the more laughable things in this country honestly.

[Highland 0]

Since when do the losers in a war deserve to be treated with any favourability?

[Ripper 0]

Losers who broke away from the United States because they didn't like how the laws worked and took up arms against this country killing a huge number of AMERICAN soldiers.

 

*wonders if that guy that was charged with taking up arms against American soldiers in Afganistan will be given some statues one day*

[Vyce 0]

You have to be from the South, I suppose, to really understand.

 

There's been a very distinct shift in the way the South and the Confederacy has been presented in the past few years. A decade and a half ago when I was studying the Civil War for the first time, there wasn't so intense a villification of the Confederacy as there is today.

 

I doubt most soldiers on the northern side really cared about whether slaves were free or not.

 

They didn't. Racism was rampant in the north. The North wasn't fighting for chiefly abolitionist ideals, they were fighting to preserve the Union.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

There's been a very distinct shift in the way the South and the Confederacy has been presented in the past few years.

 

There's also a very distinct shift in the way the South has presented Creationism for quite a few years. Say what you want about how poorly mismanaged and overcrowded the schools in my state are, at least we don't put stickers in textbooks that tell people to remember that all this "science" stuff might be phooey and to consider the possiblitiy that a religious deity made everything. Evidence is for pussies!

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

But the Catholics and other immigrants can pass for White, for the skin privilege.

Not when you were right off the boat and could only speak the language of your home nation. And the "privleges" didn't mean shit in the piece of shit factories and coal mining towns of the Northeast. I would suggest looking up the "Molly Maguires" if you're really interested in how bad the immigrants got it.

[Guest SP-1]

There's been a very distinct shift in the way the South and the Confederacy has been presented in the past few years.

 

There's also a very distinct shift in the way the South has presented Creationism for quite a few years. Say what you want about how poorly mismanaged and overcrowded the schools in my state are, at least we don't put stickers in textbooks that tell people to remember that all this "science" stuff might be phooey and to consider the possiblitiy that a religious deity made everything. Evidence is for pussies!

I suppose people should be robbed of the right to have all the information presented to them in order to decide what they believe, eh? Or did it suddenly become right for only one view to find representation in the educational system when I wasn't looking?

[Ripper 0]

You have to be from the South, I suppose, to really understand.

 

There's been a very distinct shift in the way the South and the Confederacy has been presented in the past few years. A decade and a half ago when I was studying the Civil War for the first time, there wasn't so intense a villification of the Confederacy as there is today.

 

I doubt most soldiers on the northern side really cared about whether slaves were free or not.

 

They didn't. Racism was rampant in the north. The North wasn't fighting for chiefly abolitionist ideals, they were fighting to preserve the Union.

I from Alabama and live in Georgia. One hundred percent southern guy.

 

And even when I was in elementry school, I just saw so many flaws on why we were praising the Confederacy so much. I have never understood it and never will honestly. Yes, the south was presented as this group of gentlemen fighting for their land from the evil, city burnin northern colonies. They fought valiantly but eventually lost and should be respected.

 

The truth in it, they diffentatly were more(vast majority honestly) southern troops fighting to keep their land and fighting to stay apart from the Union instead of outright fighting for to keep slavery. BUT, when your reason for leaving the Union is slavery and that the platform you want to stand on to defend state rights, then you are in essense fighting for slavery.

[Firestarter 0]

There's also a very distinct shift in the way the South has presented Creationism for quite a few years. Say what you want about how poorly mismanaged and overcrowded the schools in my state are, at least we don't put stickers in textbooks that tell people to remember that all this "science" stuff might be phooey and to consider the possiblitiy that a religious deity made everything. Evidence is for pussies!

I suppose people should be robbed of the right to have all the information presented to them in order to decide what they believe, eh? Or did it suddenly become right for only one view to find representation in the educational system when I wasn't looking?

Oh, no. Oh, hell no. Don't even imagine for so much as one second that you're getting away with that "equal representation" crap here.

 

Evolution is not a "view." It is SCIENTIFIC FACT.

 

Creationism is not "information." It is RELIGIOUS DOGMA.

 

And you and the rest of your shrill, bleating, pathetically ignorant herd can keep your stinking sheep-shit out of SCIENCE classes in PUBLIC schools.

[Firestarter 0]

What about the free black men who enlisted in the Confederate army? There's a memorial to one of them in my state. You want to tell me he was fighting for slavery as well? What about General Ulysses S Grant? He flat-out refused to free his slaves, but he fought for the Union. Was he a "monster?" Will you bless him regardless of his actions because his uniform was blue, or damn him regardless of his actions because his skin was white?

By the way, Ripper, I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions.

[Firestarter 0]

they diffentatly were more(vast majority honestly) southern troops fighting to keep their land and fighting to stay apart from the Union instead of outright fighting for to keep slavery.

As I said, and documented, try 98%.

 

BUT, when your reason for leaving the Union is slavery and that the platform you want to stand on to defend state rights, then you are in essense fighting for slavery

That's true.

 

No, really, I agree with you.

 

The war was ultimately about slavery. That is why we do not have monuments to the Confederacy per se. That is why we do not have Confederate flags flying over state capitols. We have monuments to the men and women who died fighting on the wrong side, not for ideologies, not for hatred, and not for self-interest; not, in fact, for anything more evil than their families and their homes. They were our brothers and sisters, and we have not only a right but a duty to remember them, and not only to remember them, but to honour their dead and respect their descendants.

 

This issue is exactly as divisive as you choose to make it. No more.

[Ripper 0]

What about the free black men who enlisted in the Confederate army? There's a memorial to one of them in my state. You want to tell me he was fighting for slavery as well? What about General Ulysses S Grant? He flat-out refused to free his slaves, but he fought for the Union. Was he a "monster?" Will you bless him regardless of his actions because his uniform was blue, or damn him regardless of his actions because his skin was white?

By the way, Ripper, I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions.

Sorry, didn't see it before.

 

 

For the free black men that fought for the confederacy, they were apart of the 98% that were fighting because they knew they were up to lose the land that had gotten. BUT, he still was siding with the Army whose stance was slavery. So in essence he WAS fighting for slavery. There were also the blacks that were offered freedom if they fought for the confederacy. It really wasn't a rarity in the war as history would try to make it look. But they were still fighting for slavery. Even though the north was fighting and their plan to phase out slavery was over nearly one hundred years, they had a plan to phase it out and the south didn't.

 

As for Grant, he was indeed all for slavery and was not the type of man to celebrate. But he fought for the right side. Don't you think there are at least SOME soldiers over in Iraq who thought it was a horrible idea to go there and was against it. THere had to be at least some troops fighting in WWII that were anti-semitic and were all for what Hitler was doing. The same can be said for every war and every side basically. I never called all the confederate soldiers evil(I don't think, and if I did, I miswrote what I meant). I said that the CAUSE that they were fighting for was evil. Evil men fought on both sides and great men fought on both sides. Some of the acts of Union Soilders as they took over southern cities were deplorable, but the CAUSE they were fighting for, rather they believed in it or not, was still the better of the two sides.

 

I think my whole "anti-confederacy" stance comes from being from the south and seeing it glorified to the point that the facts of the war have been completely tossed out the window to say that these HEROIC men were ONLY fighting for their homes and that slavery was not that much of a issue.

 

I have no problem for the memorials for the confederacy. Muesems where you can go and learn all about it...fine. But in alot of the south, the flag STILL flys, and people are FORCED not to celebrate those that fought in the war, but the Confederacy itself without noticing the facts that it stood on.

[Vyce 0]

They were our brothers and sisters, and we have not only a right but a duty to remember them, and not only to remember them, but to honour their dead and respect their descendants.

 

Right.

 

That's why I'm against some of the more extreme Confederacy hatred out there.

[Guest SP-1]

Scientific fact, eh?

 

I must have missed where they found that huge evolutionary gap between the advanced monkeys and man. You know, that one huge smoking gun that could actually prove the whole shebang.

 

But they haven't, have they?

 

Evolution is as much theory as anything else. There's too much unexplained in there. Calling a theory a fact is grasping for something that isn't there yet. It's still the THEORY of Evolution, not Evolutionary Law.

 

I wasn't aware that the pursuit of education was limited to singular views that are just as unproven as it's main opponent. If that's what the educational system has come to, I can suddenly understand why so many people prefer home schooling.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Evolution is as much theory as anything else.

AHAHAHAHA.... AAAHAHHAHAHAHA...

 

You need the episode of "Penn & Teller's Bullshit!" (a myth-busting show) where they debunk the creationists. It's grand and maybe it'll do you some good.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I love history, can we talk about the Civil War more and not about Religon vs. Science?

 

 

For example: Did you know that the Battle of Antiem (sp?), Maryland was the bloodiest single day of combat on US soil ever?

[chaosrage 0]

Scientific fact, eh?

 

I must have missed where they found that huge evolutionary gap between the advanced monkeys and man.  You know, that one huge smoking gun that could actually prove the whole shebang.

 

But they haven't, have they?

 

 

You = the biggest idiot I've ever seen on this board.

 

Just because we have gaps doesn't mean we haven't found any transitional fossils at all. We have fossils of humans with heavy brow ridges, large teeth, no chin, smaller brain sizes, etc. Look it up.

 

Evolution is as much theory as anything else.  There's too much unexplained in there.  Calling a theory a fact is grasping for something that isn't there yet.  It's still the THEORY of Evolution, not Evolutionary Law.

 

Theories describe laws. Gravity is also get this..... a theory. It's not a complete fact on why it happens, just that it does. Same with evolution. Because nothing is ever final in science. Theories are constantly being tested and revised as new data becomes available.