Georgia House passes monument protection measure

Half of the violent crime being committed by 6% of the population.........

 

Uh I don't think it would work like that.

 

Where are you getting these numbers from?

 

Really? How do you think it would work?

 

Cool beans on the statue; Lincoln was a monster, but still cool.

 

At least two in the South - DC and Richmond - probably more.

 

^ Magnificent, thread-stopping post.

 

^ Most ridiculous argument ever; worthy of its grammatical paucity.

 

He was an absolute psychopath.

And the statue to this monster is a precious part of our shared cultural history.

 

They saw an invading army coming to capture their state governments and take their elected officials as prisoner's burning their homes and fields businesses and putting them under martial law.

 

I concur.

Sherman's army committed more than a few atrocities. They were more like the Soviet army during WW ll who raped and pillaged their way across Europe.

But Sherman and his army is part of our culture and history and his statue should remain standing.

 

He won.

 

Wow, all those additions would greatly improve those monuments. Georgia should add them to all of them.

Why is the south so obsessed with monuments to losers? That to me is a real question. And it's not about history, because the losers are well documented in the history books. The only reason to put up statues depicting racist, losers is to intimidate black people. Again, this is one of those self-aware moments that is being purposefully ignored. Monuments are for glorification, books are for history. Also, people should read more books

 

All war is an atrocity. There is nothing kind or nice about it. It's butchery. Sherman did what he had to in order to win. Winning is a great way to stop the atrocities. Ideally, not fighting in the first place would have been great but the South stupidly lied to themselves that they could win. They had no chance. They had a weak economy, a horribly weak government that couldn't compel it's members to defend the common good, and a cause that wasn't going to stand over time. They were facing an economic and politically superior opponent who had much more incentive to win than lose.

 

Rabid, tyrannical factions always want to destroy any representation of philosophies that they hate!

A perfect, RELEVANT example of this was shown in Afghanistan by the Taliban's deliberate obliteration of the ancient Buddahs of Bamyan, which was ordered by big-wig Muslim Mullah Mohammed Omar. The message was clear -- Islam will not tolerate any philosophical presence but their own -- so, they destroyed these priceless historical artifacts with dynamite.

Is it not clear by now that violent Islam has MUCH in common with other intolerant, dictatorial factions like ANTIFA and BLM?!

. But, if you HATE something, just destroy it!

 

What led up to the "Great Rebellion" (American Civil War) was very complex.
But when hostilities began the Union fought a total war while the South failed to fight a total war.
The South just didn't have the industrial complex to wage total war.

 

Let me stop you right there. It wasn't a Great Rebellion at all. It was a Civil War. There have been MANY other and MUCH greater rebellions than the American Civil War. And also, many of them succeeded.

Exactly what I said. They lacked the economy and political prowess to fight the Union. But guess what, by losing that war that meant they were never a foreign country despite their claims, and as such should a nation tolerate monuments to rebels who stood for racism and slavery? Ethics that are polar opposites of the ideals the nation claims to stand for? Nope.

 

An even greater tragedy is that with the rapid development of agricultural technologies in America, slavery would have become obsolete on its own before World War I. Slavery was an expensive proposition from start to finish -- like all labor costs. New innovations in farming and harvesting machinery would have rapidly replaced the need to human beings to do a lot of the planting, cultivation, and harvesting. Slavery would have "gone out of business", almost entirely after 1900....

But what people forget, or try to gloss-over is the fact that those states that seceeded from the U. S. did so primarily because of the tyrannical, dictatorial, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions taken by Lincoln's central, federal government. Southerners had never forgotten the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, and they did not accept the concept that a state could LEAVE the U. S. if it WANTED to. So what did Lincoln and the Northerners do? They made war on the seceeding states and crushed them underfoot.... Real 'federal democracy' in action! And, for all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment died when the Civil War ended....

 

I'm trying to recall all those enslaved by the Buddahs of Bamyan...oh yeah, there was that one...nope. Not a single person.

So what you have done is taken a religious statue that doesn't represent slavery and racism and compared it's destruction to the destruction of statues that do represent those values. And you think this is a winning argument? Nice try.

Oh, here's a good one. I presume you adamantly opposed the destruction of this fine monument!

https://www.google.com/search?q=rem...bbhAhUHPK0KHeFBBUoQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=1006

I mean look at how that historical figure was desecrated with that American flag! Shameful. I suspect you must be outraged right now...

 

Yeah nice try.

Slavery was a way of life, economics didn't play that much into it. Do you know how I know? Who owned slaves? Did every southerner? Or just the rich, aristocratic ones? That's right. So slavery should have NEVER been allowed.

Right, because they wanted to make more states into slave states. That's what started the fight that led to Lincoln declaring war over them leaving the Union. It wasn't a philosophical debate on it, it was about violating the compromises already given to slave holding states because they wanted MORE slavery. I guess you can put lipstick on a pig in the south...

 

Look at the newspapers published in the North 1861-1865. It was referred to as the "Great Rebellion" for legal reasons.

If it were a war then Lincoln's naval blockade of the South was illegal under international law.

If it was a rebellion then both civilians and soldiers in the South came under the U.S. Constitution.

If it was a war both the Union and Confederate soldiers came under the protections of the international Laws of War.

Lincoln's even went to the Supreme Court with a copy of Vattels (Laws of Nations) in his hands.

It all can be found down below, it's kinda a long read.

Constitution and the Laws of War during the Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/v...ir=1&article=1252&context=faculty_scholarship

 

It probably sold news papers. The term American Civil War is a more modern one, that is true.

I'm pretty sure a blockage is seen as a cause of war, thus if you are at war, you can blockade away.

Until he suspended those rights during a time of war. I think you are splitting hairs.

There was plenty of legal maneuvering. None of this is found or discovered by people in the monuments to the Confederacy in the South. Those were built to intimidate newly freed black people, simple as that. Hence why I don't shed a tear when they are taken down.

 

Yes it is, and so are his "exploits" during the wars against the Native American tribes of the West.

On the other hand he was one of America's most awesome, brilliant and successful warriors, and as a proponent and practitioner of total warfare he had few if any equals.

If you ask me, Sherman's statue in New York is one of the finest equestrian statues in the country. J.E.B. Stuart's got a nice one in Richmond but it's not near as nice Sherman's monument:



My vote for worst equestrian statue in America goes to this frightening excuse for sculpture in Tennessee which depicts Nathan Bedford Forrest carrying a toy revolver on a horse while he's tripping on LSD:



It's so bad it's funny.

 

It is a nice statue, and relevant to its location in Richmond it is supposed to depict a moment during Lincoln's tour of the city after its fall to Union forces.

Here's another monument in Richmond to one of your favorite people (George Washington):



Which is located near the Capitol designed by another one of your other favorite people (Thomas Jefferson).

 

Unknown to most of the Democratic party's taliban, the majority of these Civil War memorials honoring generals and other soldiers bot Union and Confederate were already American war heroes before the Civil War.

Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, Stewart, etc. were already war heroes of the Mexican-American War.

There is still one memorial still standing that honors an American war hero who would also be America's first traitor...Benedict Arnold.



Congress legislated that the memorial honoring an American war hero could stand but Benedict Arnold's name could not be etched on the monument.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Locatio...onal_Historical_Park-Stillwater_New_York.html