pressure-mounts-to-rename-army-bases-that-honor-confederate-soldiers

Should the name of Barack Obama Ave. in Opa-locka Fl be changed to something more appropriate? After all, Barack Obama ancestors (on his mother’s side) did own slaves.

 

Agreed. We need to hear from the folks that had been there

 

You seem very confused about why people want these statues removed

 

Civil war combatants? Lol

 

Let me see........

They were also all Democrats ???

So the headlines should read... "Take Down Democrat Statues."

 

If that gets republican support then I’m all for it. Sadly it seems the only dems that southerners like are slave owning traitors

 

The North had Black Codes to keep blacks out. Some states even made exclusion of blacks part of their state constitution.

 

Any numbers you see are estimates. The latest I've seen are 50,000 civilian deaths.

Keep in mind that these estimates don't include the "freed" slaves that died in the Union's "Contraband Camps". The conditions there were horrible and estimates from these camps is a 25% annual mortality rate.

For instance, at "The Devil's Punchbowl" in Natchez, Mississippi an estimated 20,000 newly freed slaves died in one year.

But, hey, at least they were "free", right?

 

No what’s sad is that you have no idea what you’re talking about but you keep opening your mouth as if you do.

 

Traitors and unhonorable men don't deserve monuments and statues, memorials, etc.

 

Why not?

 

False. That’s what you’d like to believe. Maybe even what you actually believe, but you just made it up.

 

Because the south did not go to war to save slavery, they went to war to save the constitution. As I’ve said many times, this is a demonstrable fact.

 

Well then every northerners memorial from the civil war should be torn asunder.

 

So then, retaining the right to own slaves if the South had won the Civil War was what then just added bonus? You'd be perfectly happy living in an independent southern confederacy with slavery as an institution intact?

 

Slavery would have ended just like it ended in every other country in this world (except for the continent of Africa).

Although I will say that if that were the case we certainly wouldn’t have the grossly disproportionate level of violent crime they commit.

If you’d like to have a discussion about the pros and cons of freeing the slaves we can do that. But I don’t think you’re going to like the outcome.

 

The victors get to tell the story. Make no mistake on that. The victors decide if war criminals.get statues. The victors are saying no.

The south is welcome to try again. The results will be the same or potential worse. So shut up and take your defeated tail and home.

 

No it wasn’t named until 1918.

 

Sure but that doesn’t make those stories true lol it also doesn’t make the victors any less criminal.

But might I point out the confederates were outsupplied, outgunned and outnumbered nearly 3:1 and yet the north still lost 100,000 more men than the south.

And the ONLY reason they won is because they started engaging in scorched earth terrorism by targeting innocent civilians. Actions which couldn’t be taken today or if they were would result in the perpetrators hanging for war crimes.

Which is exactly what should have happened with Sherman Grant and Lincoln. Of course we fed that tyrant Lincoln a bullet to his brain so no hanging was necessary.

 

Hey " Give me Liberty or give me death"..... "Live free or die"...
Of course there was death to civilians but that was unintended.
Union POW's died in great numbers in the Confederate Andersonville prison camp. There was no strategic policy by the Union forces to kill civilians.

Sherman did destroy infrastructure and of I assume some small number of civilians may have died as an indirect result.

 

That is blatantly, historically and factually false.

Collateral damage is when you blow up a building and it happens to fall on civilians. Sherman’s army marched into people’s homes, looted them, raped their women and murdered civilians and then burnt their homes and farms to the ground and salted the earth.

That’s not collateral damage. That’s ****ing terrorism. The likes of which even ISIS doesn’t do to its own people.

 

There could have been rouge actions by Union troops and that is wrong very wrong. There was no Union policy to rape or plunder.
If Sherman and/or his officer staff failed to control any rouge they did wrong for the few cases this may have happened.

 

And it wasn’t official policy?

You, I and every other reasonable individual knows that the level of wonton destruction, the number of homes and farms burnt to the ground, the countless stories of women raped and civilians murdered could not happen in a regimented army without officers and leadership knowing it was occurring.

And after it happened in Atlanta, did Sherman do anything to stop it going forward? No. In fact his troops got more brazen and more criminal in their actions after because there were ZERO official reprimands. Not ONE.

Why? Because in Sherman’s own words he didn’t care. He believed it hastened the war to its end. He was a terrorist with stripes.

 

Of the North nor the South was ready to elect a Black president is 1870 ...

 

Why... not to do away with any memory/symbolism of slavery? At least, as a pretext?

Tell me?