Virginia governor to announce removal of Lee statue

The confederate states started seceding before Lincoln was even sworn in. Regardless, this is bull ****. I didn't comment on Lincoln's motives; I commented on the Confederacy's motives. We know, from primary sources, in their own words, that they seceded primarily over slavery. This is not debatable. They explicitly said so themselves. Your attempts to erase history are not going to work, though it does make your own accusations absolutely hilarious.

 

The Confederate states seceded in order to preserve the institution of slavery. Period. They admitted such. We can review primary sources again if you want, but you refuse to address them. Your attempts to erase history will not work.

 

Yes, it does erase history. No one will ever see the statue again.

Commies like to separate people from their history and traditional values. They like to start fresh, like nothing good ever happened before the commies arrived to save the people.

 

He was writing about the United States creating the Gettysburg Civil War memorial. Are you advocating we close down the Gettysburg memorial park and all other such memorial parks?

Summary: The paper prints Robert E. Lee's note declining an invitation to join officers on the battlefield of Gettysburg to mark troop positions for posterity. Lee and a number of Democratic newspapers believe that the battle of Gettysburg and the strife accompanying the Civil War are best left forgotten.

Full Text of Article:
The widely heralded meeting of the officers, (U.S and Confederate,) who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, to mark the operations of both armies on the field, by enduring memorials of granite, has proven, as many expected a great farce. But few of the prominent Northern officers were present and only two Confederate officers of minor grades. The Hotel man did not make as much as he expected, when he got up the idea.

Gen. Lee was invited and forwarded the following reply:

Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869.

Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
R. E. Lee.

The New York Herald and other Northern papers were down on perpetuating the memory of Gettysburg. The Democratic Watchman, (Pa.) expresses their sentiments in short, which for its succinctness and pith, we copy below:

"Another big fuss at Gettysburg. A lot of officers are there for the purpose of fixing definitely the positions occupied by the troops on the first day's battle. Better take Gen. Lee's advise and let the darned thing die out of remembrance."
http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon...day=03&edition=rv1869/va.au.rv.1869.09.03.xml

 

Unless it is relocated. Regardless, "seeing a statue" is not how literate people learn history.

Intellectually lazy red-baiting aside, the "traditional value" that the Confederacy stood for was slavery. They said as much. Repeatedly. The "lost cause" bull **** is an ACTUAL attempt to erase history, unlike moving a statue.

 

Slavery was not illegal, there was no move to make it illegal in those states, Lincoln invaded to bring them back into the Union with their slavery INTACT. Slavery was legal during and AFTER the war ended. Your attempts to ignore and erase history notwithstanding.

 

The slave-holding states (the phrase they chose to describe themselves, which gives you a hint about their primary concern) did not believe what you believe. They believed the institution of slavery was in danger. That's why they seceded. They stated as much.

I've made no comment about the motives of Lincoln, so I'd appreciate it if you would start telling the truth about that. I commented on the motives of the Confederacy -- the history you are desperately trying to erase at every turn, and which you try to erase every time this topic comes up.

Simply yes/no question: do you acknowledge that the Confederate states seceded primarily in order to preserve the institution of slavery? If no, then how do you explain the fact that the primary sources refute your attempt to rewrite history?

 

I would also like to remind those offended that our money has images of slave owners. You should immediately burn all your money!

 

None of them rebelled violently against our country in order to preserve the institution of slavery. The Confederacy did.

 

Not if you shield delicate eyes from images and pretend it didn't happen. If you will excuse me, I just saw a Dukes of Hazard lunchbox so I have to run around in circles with my arms flailing until they remove it from my view!

 

I don't have to "shield" my eyes in order to understand that the people depicted on my money didn't violently rebel against the US in order to preserve slavery. I just have to read. As far as the "flailing" goes, if people are triggered by historical fact, maybe it is better that they remain historically illiterate, for their own sanity.

 

no one is erasing the bad things southern conservatives did, just moving the history to a more appropriate pace, I would not want a statue of Hitler to be placed there either....

Confederates will still be able to worship their statue, they will just have to do it somewhere else

 

got to love the right, Trump issues a national emergency, tells the States to shut down for 30 days, then Trump tells the States how to open.... then the Right attacks the States for doing what Trump said to do

 

people are allowed to buy Confederate things... what people are against is the government forcing it on the people on state house lawns or in the middle of town on pedestals as some kinda hero

nothing wrong with moving these Confederate statues to more appropriate locations - maybe Trump could put them on his golf courses

 

They saw the territories were not being allowed to decide themselves and an overpowering federal government. Do you acknowledge Lincoln did not start the war to end slavery? They also knew the Northern states relied on slavery as much as they did and for that matter Europe relied on slavery for the products we exported to them. The fact remains slavery was legal in the United States before, during and after the war. Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy to end slavery he invaded to force those slave states back into the Union with their slavery intact along side the slave states that did not succeed. The Civil War did NOT start as some noble cause to free slaves and end slavery.

 

This statement, in itself, assumes that slave-owning is a legitimate right. I disagree.

I've stated so several times. Why won't you answer my question?

Historically false. Flat-out. Objectively false.

Partially correct. I've stated the first part myself several times. However, Lincoln eventually realized that preserving the Union would mean abolition.

[quote[The Civil War did NOT start as some noble cause to free slaves and end slavery.[/QUOTE]I never said it did. I stated the opposite several times.

I'm talking about the motivations of the Confederacy. Why are you so desperate to dodge that topic?

I'll try again: do you acknowledge that the Confederate states seceded primarily in order to preserve the institution of slavery? If no, then how do you explain the fact that the primary sources refute your attempt to rewrite history?

I've answered your questions, despite the fact that you adamantly refused to answer mine. Will you now answer my questions? If not, why so desperate to run away from the topic?

 

This is a unique revision to history as we know it(which is why it's not working.) California was the first state to shut down, are we going to claim that Governor Newsom is owned by Trump? The other governors followed. Let's get an ACCURATE retelling of history:

-As the Democratic side likes to complain, at first Trump was dismissive of the virus, naively and foolishly optimistic while at the same time issuing the travel bans on China and then a few weeks later Europe. I won't argue the president's point that he "knew it was a pandemic before it was a pandemic" because if he did, he would have(and should have) instituted a world wide travel ban including from the US.

However, in the President's defense though he has not said this, we already know that in response to the Chinese ban, democrats were already calling him xenophobic(Speaker Pelosi and minority leader Schumer). Biden, a worse candidate than Clinton(in likeability and actual 'policies') took MONTHS before admitting "yeah, that might be a pretty good idea."

So, what would have happened if he did a world wide travel ban? Impeachment 2?(Or would it be impeachment 3?) Without certainty.
And while the impeachment probably didn't impair the President, it most certainly impaired the ENTIRE UNION including Liberals from seeing the dangers of the virus.

Which in my view at least is worse. It would be easy to blame the President, much harder for a whole nation to be generally unaware of what was to become a worldwide threat to human civilization.

So strike one for the Democratic/Liberal Party. And then there's the stupid riots, and any and all attempts at even pretending to put that at the hands of the President were laughable. Not wanting to deal with an anarchist threat and uprising in the country, some wanted to pretend(though there has been a sparse few) white/far-right groups in the midst of the anarchy against the United States.

So that's strike two. Strike three is going to be the fact that this US Congress, especially this Democratic House has failed in anyway to cooperate with the President of the United States. It is apparent that the Democrats cannot serve our federal union, but in worse by allowing the riots, they appear to be unable to serve their own states/cities that they hold.

If there were a strike four, it would be the sad thing that neither liberal voters nor the politicians in charge of the party care to reflect, have inner change or even listen to the cries of their constituents. Instead, the democrats stand on their own island.(Yep, the blue wall is now reduced to the islands of California and NY).

 

There were multiple reasons that the Southern States were compelled to withdraw from a union that was overwhelmingly bias in favor of the industrial, Northern states.

If "freeing the slaves" was anything other than a virtuous sounding propaganda ploy, why did Lincoln wait years to issue the Emancipation Proclamation that only freed Southern slaves & left slavery intact in the North?

Lincoln was only interested in preserving a union that favored the industrialized North (1) at the expense of the less populous, agrarian South.


“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” A. Lincoln

https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...s-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/4/


(1) "Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People"
https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...sts-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/

EXCERPT "The history books often declare that President Abraham Lincoln saw the Civil War as an opportunity to bring about justice and free the millions of Black slaves in the South. Yet, this is hardly the case. In March of 1861, Lincoln rendered the following words: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”" CONTINUED

 

how quick the right try to re-write history

and for the record, I think the virus was here late last year, so the Trump shutdown may not of even been needed, Trump may have harmed the economy for nothing...


"*** In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed."

"The President's CoronaVirus Guidelines for America"

"30 days to slow the spread"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf

 

The North was also agrarian. If those "multiple reasons" were so important, why was the one that the primarily named slavery?

Already covered. If you are honestly curious, please read my previous responses to this attempt to change the subject. I'm talking about the motives of the Confederacy.

 

It's been 35+ years since I read that.... it's not an easy read, but I cannot see how a municipality deciding what statues it displays equates with Big Brother....

"Enemy of the People" however...... That's pretty close...

 

The Trump admin uses 1984 as a playbook

 

I might, if I had any left...

Prez Obama for the $5 bill!!! Start a petition...

 

You're dead wrong, Egoboy - I'm not up in arms over this.

My position on this issue has always been that the localities should be free to decide what to do with the statues in their communities. I don't know where the City of Richmond is getting the money for all this, but as long as they're paying for the removal of the statues their decision doesn't concern or affect me at all.

What I don't understand is what this half-wit has to do with anything



The law gives localities the authority to remove, relocate or contextualize the statues, not Governor Coonman.

 

It is certainly closer, and we have examples of the administration editing their own publications in order to fit Trumpist messaging. But, no, simply removing or moving a statue has nothing to do with 1984.

Just a note: Zamyatin's We was better, and 1984 was basically a rip-off of it. Much better read, IMO.