Georgia House passes monument protection measure

They were patriots to their states who gave their all to protect their homes and families and country. Those who actually know history don't care what you think.

 

We've got a statue of Lincoln and his son Tad here in the former Capital of the Confederacy:



It's located at the site of the old Tredegar Ironworks that got destroyed when the Confederates burned Richmond to the ground exactly 154 years ago to this day - April 3, 1865.



Six days after the Confederates relieved the citizens of Richmond of their homes and factories they surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.

Thanks, a**holes! Real smart...

 

States rights and freedom from a tyrannical government is a disgusting cause?

 

Hillary and Bernie weren't running for president in 2017. Check your sources.

How many do you want to see?






I wonder how many of those people realize the intentions of Lincoln or only know the revised "LINCOLN WAS THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR WHO FOUGHT THE SOUTH TO FREE THE SLAVES!" bullshit you guys still inaccurately peddle.

 

Less than 5% of the soldiers and leaders who fought in the Civil War owned a slave. So I'd argue that many in the South did not share that interest. Those people went to war to fight for freedom, not slavery. They didn't get to read the Declarations of Secession, as written by the rich slave owners, before they went to war.

 

Don't know, don't care. He fought for the Union so I would assume his statues are all in the North.

 

There's a reason why American veterans of the Pacific theatre of war during WW ll didn't talk much about their experiences of what really took place.

It wasn't politically correct what took place and the American taliban left would eventually be trying to topple the Marine Corps War Memorial.

And every year veterans both American and Japanese who 74 years ago were trying to kill each other meet on the island of Iowa Jima to honor those both American and Japanese who paid the ultimate price.

The cultural-marxist taliban would never understand.

Surviving veterans of Iwo Jima reunite for WWII battle’s 74th anniversary
https://www.stripes.com/surviving-v...e-for-wwii-battle-s-74th-anniversary-1.574204

 

Are you trying to insinuate the Confederates PURPOSELY burned down the ENTIRE city of Richmond? Laughably false. And with communications in the state they were and Lee holding out to the last moment he could what does the surrender six days later have to do with anything?

 

I have no sympathy for the Confederacy and the "peculiar institution" it vainly fought to defend, but what you say is true. Most of the men who fought in the Confederate military fought to defend their homes and families and country.

As a Virginian, I've put myself in Robert E. Lee's shoes and wondered if I could raise a sword against my neighbors and the state I have loved my entire life and I don't know that I could. Furthermore, if I resisted conscription I would have been shot on sight - Southern men weren't given a choice in the matter.

It's easy to sit here over a 150 years removed from the fact and think like an ignorant simpleton who doesn't have a clue about any of these things and how complicated the situation was. I deplore the Confederacy that Lee fought for but I can understand why he did. Virginia was his country first and foremost, and after that the United States that he once served.

We're fortunate that we'll never be confronted with having to make that choice.

 

All traitors are Patriots to somebody.

 

yep, it's history, let's protect it, make it a crime to try and change history by removing it - no fixing statues as that would changing the history of the statue

 

Absolutely true - most Southerners fought for their freedom, family, neighbors, homes, land, country - the things that most people everywhere hold dear. Some fought because they weren't given a choice in the matter, too.

To clarify my remarks, when I referred to the many in the South who shared the interests of the Midwesterners who wanted to extend slavery into the West I had rich landowners and the political class in mind, not your average Southerner who cared nothing about that.

 

States rights to enslave blacks is a disgusting cause.

 

They defended themselves from an invasion by the United States, the country where slavery was also legal and was even legal after the war ended. Lincoln invaded to bring those slaves states back into the Union with their slavery intact, so that "particular institution" was not originated by the Confederacy, nor the United States for that matter, and was practiced on by both sides. The invasion was NOT to free the slaves and end slavery. Slaves looked up and saw the American Union Jack for almost 100 years before they ever saw a Confederate flag. So you also deplore the United States where slavery existed all those years?

And you are correct to a citizen at the time their STATE citizenship highly outranked their United States citizenship where most people had no interaction with the federal government at all. Your loyalty was first to your state.

 

Not to many months ago in the Capital of the Third World (Los Angeles) in the totalitarian hermit kingdom of California someone tried to erase history.

Now anyone who was around during the 1960's remember the Black Panthers, really bad hombres who were also "useful idiots" of the Kremlin.

 

Blacks were enslaved in the United States long before the Civil War, during the Civil War and after the Civil War. Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy to end slavery and free the slaves.

 

Slavery paid a big part what helped cause the American Civil War but it wasn't the reason why Americans were fighting Americans on the battlefield.

Before 1865 Americans didn't hold their loyalty to the federal government but to the sovereign state they lived in.

Just look at the Union army order of battle. Mostly state regiments not the regular U.S. Army. Look at the CSA order of battle, state armies like the Army of Northern Virginia.

 

Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman whose army pilliged, raped black women, burned cities and homes from Atlanta to the sea.

It's America's history.

 

I say leave the damaged statue there as is, it's part of history now

 

Republicans and their wars, these two 10+ year wars have cost us dearly... we need a war tax when at war imo

we should put up the "mission accomplished" flag as a reminder to all on the state house lawn of Bush's state

 

If I wanted to say that the Confederate purposely burned down the entire city I would have said so.

The fact remains that the Confederates did burn down much of the city along the James River and all the factories and mills that were located there and it's also a fact that some of the Union troops who first entered Richmond helped put out the fires. Bottom line, the Confederate government screwed the people of Richmond when they evacuated the city - whether they screwed them deliberately or not they got screwed just the same.

It has to do with the people who lived in Richmond. Losing your home and your livelihood to buy a shattered army six measly days and a doomed government a few more weeks is a mighty steep price to pay for such a futile and destructive gesture.

And this is precisely why Virginians were amongst the last people to join the Confederacy's hopeless cause. They knew that the war would be fought on their land, that it would be their cities, towns, homes, farms and businesses that would get pillaged and destroyed by the armies fighting in our state.

We can talk about lofty ideas and noble intentions till the cows come home but secession was an unmitigated disaster for Virginia, and the people of our fair commonwealth paid dearly for that mistake.

 

Pretty sure the war tax aka personal income taxes has been in place for a really long time.

The mission in Iraq in 2003 was regime change.
That mission was accomplished.

The U.S. military should never be used for nation building.

 

First red flag, 40 out of the thousands interviewed made this claim.

Second red flag, and directly from your link:

That's all hearsay. My parents bought the World Book Encyclopedia collection in the early 80's (before history was too hard for democrats to handle and therefore revised) and you can easily pull the "C" book and read this about the Union Army in there. You can also read that after the first emancipation was pushed out, it said that if slaves could escape and get past the Mason-Dixon Line then they would be free men. It goes on to explain that the Union Army, Lincoln's Union Army, captured many of these slaves and used them for cooking and cleaning and making clothes for the soldiers. You'll also read, on top of what I've already mentioned, that Lincoln demoted one of his Generals for a disagreement they had after his General wanted to put some of the slaves on the front line. Lincoln said they weren't smart enough for battle.

It's all in there with much more. I don't care if you believe what I say or think I'm making this up. If you want to continue being ignorant to this country's history then that's on you. What's one more brainwashed liberal anyways?

 

Well that is what your statement insinuated.

They set fire to the bridges, armories and warehouses which is standard for a retreating army. After they left the fires got out of control and burned other parts of the city.

They did not "destroy" just to destroy or in some kind or attack on the city, get your history straight.

False again, they had no idea that 5 years later the Confederate Army would be evacuating Richmond.

Perhaps the Union should not have invaded in the first place then there would have been no war.