More Traitor Monuments .....Gone
- Thread starter katzgar
- Start date
I'm sure there are a thousand ways to do it wrong.
I haven't advocated any one of them.
And you calling me names is neither logical nor persuasive. I've stated the facts. I don't recall you or the other name-callers posting here refuting my reasoning. You're all simply too dim-witted to understand that it's possible on rare occasion to reach the same conclusion as your opposition, even if for an entirely different reason.
But keep calling me names anyway. Since you can't refute my logic, name-calling is all you've got.
No you haven't stated facts the part you keep choosing to ignore is why people of colors opinion doesn't matter to you at all that's why you're a racist is because only your white opinion matters people of colors opinion doesn't matter see how that works
On my computer, the above quoted comment appears on page 11 of this topic.
The very first words of mine on this page #11 are in quotation:
It only took me a moment to prove you wrong.
a) I've never asserted that.
b) I've never implied that.
c) If you're going to concoct lies about me and my position, don't you think it would make sense for you to at least make them plausible?
Fiction author Tom Clancy said: "One of the differences between reality and fiction is, fiction has to make sense."
You're not making sense. Why would a racist advocate displaying informational plaques about our history?
Whatever you say cupcake. I'm also Superman and the Easter Bunny!
You have it backwards.
It is YOU that wish to impose YOUR personal preference on all.
In vivid contrast I advocate leaving it optional for all; and educating the public in the process.
The only time I've posted those words is in quoting you. Is it possible you've forgotten to take your Thorazine?
Bottom line is racism like yours is fading in this country and the monuments are coming down
Oh, you do believe the federal government should be overbearing and abusive. Thanks for admitting it, left-winger.
This post of mine could not possibly inform on my attitude toward slavery one way or another, for this comment is about political rights, not civil rights.
President Lincoln had no choice for the rebel South.
Lincoln was sworn to uphold the Constitution.
And the Constitution requires preserving the union:
"calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and ..." Art.1 Sect.8 - 15
Please do not conflate the RIGHT of separatism with the South's reason for it.
To deny the legitimacy of the South's right to secede equally undermines the legitimacy of the United States itself, which seceded from the monarchy.
If the South seceding from the North was not legitimate, then the American colonies seceding from the king was equally not legitimate.
Jefferson enumerated this right explicitly:
a bombardment is not a battle.
Go to Gettysburg. Look at the monuments as you take in the troop movements, and the hand to hand combat.
Go to Devil's Den or one of the Roundtops - and you'll see a real battle..
The CSA were fighting for their states -i don't think you get that, you want to have this pall of slavery cast over the battlefields
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
If you have read my posts on the matter, you will see that I never deny the south's right to secede. The Civil War (as it is incorrectly named) would have been avoided had the CSA not attacked America. Many assume reunification would have occurred when the southern economy began to suffer.
T #170
Yes.
I'm a native born, life-long New Yorker, a "daim yankee" by the standards that prevail South of the Mason Dixie.
But I have been persuaded by my patient, articulate Southern brethren that over a half million dead was not the optimal solution. And that as you suggest, a taste of the separation might have yielded subsequent accommodation.
Who knows?
"Shoulda woulda coulda." Can't unring the bell.
And thank you for hinting at a more descriptive term, such as "The War of Norther Aggression", which some of our Southern brothers prefer.
Yes.
I'm a native born, life-long New Yorker, a "daim yankee" by the standards that prevail South of the Mason Dixie.
But I have been persuaded by my patient, articulate Southern brethren that over a half million dead was not the optimal solution. And that as you suggest, a taste of the separation might have yielded subsequent accommodation.
Who knows?
"Shoulda woulda coulda." Can't unring the bell.
And thank you for hinting at a more descriptive term, such as "The War of Norther Aggression", which some of our Southern brothers prefer.
The South had no right to secede according to the law of the day you really like living your own special place don't you
They've been addressed. You refuse to acknowledge they existed. You like powerful, overbearing federal governments.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
The only problem with this assertion is that you posted it as if in reply to my post, which you quoted.
I quoted the Constitution, which clearly supports the union's position. So you're agreeing with me, but pretending not to.
Oh yes!
Very much so!
Here's the view from my kitchen window, this snowy Christmas eve:
I'm running the wood-burning stove, beverages in the fridge, getting ready for 3 NFL games starting in a few hours.
It's quiet, comfortable, safe, & secure here. The walls of the tower are over 14" thick.
When I deadbolt the steel door, the manifold woes of the world recede to insignificance.
Thanks for asking.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Then quite obviously you don't know or understand the history you're talking about .. which makes my point.
Obviously you don't know about the Blockade of Confederate Ports, or how the battle and siege of Ft. Pulaski was critical to that strategy .. a strategy that played well into the defeat of the south. It didn't take visiting a monument for me to know that history. History is not told in a monument. That requires intelligence and a search for truth.
One cannot know the history of Gandhi nor Dr. King by visiting a monument. That requires intelligence and a search for truth .. and the truth in this case determines that confederates were monsters. I don't give a rats ass about your revisionist delusions and fascinations with monsters. Why in the hell would you think I would? That's a serious question.
You are forever free to hold any fascination with monsters that you choose, but public celebration of that evil is fading from American society. The south you cling to will only be found in old movies. :0) Welcome to America.
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#States
In Missouri, a constitutional convention was approved and delegates elected by voters. The convention rejected secession 89–1 on March 19, 1861.[71] The governor maneuvered to take control of the St. Louis Arsenal and restrict Federal movements. This led to confrontation, and in June Federal forces drove him and the General Assembly from Jefferson City. The executive committee of the constitutional convention called the members together in July. The convention declared the state offices vacant, and appointed a Unionist interim state government.[
they breached Government property control
The only problem with this assertion is that you posted it as if in reply to my post, which you quoted.
I quoted the Constitution, which clearly supports the union's position. So you're agreeing with me, but pretending not to.
Oh yes!
Very much so!
Here's the view from my kitchen window, this snowy Christmas eve:
I'm running the wood-burning stove, beverages in the fridge, getting ready for 3 NFL games starting in a few hours.
It's quiet, comfortable, safe, & secure here. The walls of the tower are over 14" thick.
When I deadbolt the steel door, the manifold woes of the world recede to insignificance.
Thanks for asking.
In point of Truth the question was not resolved until 1869 which of course is after the conclusion of the Civil War. Prior to 1869 those that supported the legality of secession had as much support behind them as those that opposed it. The question is now decided so not longer open to discussion. The important part of this conversation is that statues to non American heroes are slowly being torn down.
evince
Truthmatters
In Missouri, a constitutional convention was approved and delegates elected by voters. The convention rejected secession 89–1 on March 19, 1861.[71] The governor maneuvered to take control of the St. Louis Arsenal and restrict Federal movements
SEAR you need to face the facts
Sucession did not give them the right to abscound with USA Federal property the whole country paid for .
SEAR you need to face the facts
Sucession did not give them the right to abscound with USA Federal property the whole country paid for .