Heisenberg

Man who thinks tearing down confederate statues is akin to ISIS almost wins Republican nomination for VA Gov

150 posts in this topic

"The Party of Lincoln"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this modern era, the Confederacy would likely be classified as terrorists.  Would cities and states build monuments to terrorists these days?  Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ivanbalt said:

In this modern era, the Confederacy would likely be classified as terrorists.  Would cities and states build monuments to terrorists these days?  Probably not.

Nonsense.  Not by any rational definition would they be considered terrorists.  Now John Brown, hst2's hero, would certainly fit the definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

Nonsense.  Not by any rational definition would they be considered terrorists.  Now John Brown, hst2's hero, would certainly fit the definition.

They were the losers of a war. Do they even have a right to have monuments dedicated to their cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the confederacy would have had statues of people like Grant had they won. 

Actually, I don't wonder too much, the answer is pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

wow, "almost"?.  I'm scared.

I do understand the concern, after all, the dems are figuring they win these days when they almost win elections. So an almost is a victory for the confederacy here!

Edited by Saticon3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ncbirdfan said:

They were the losers of a war. Do they even have a right to have monuments dedicated to their cause?

Why is this an issue now 150 years after the war where former rival combatants made peace with each other?  Maybe some don't want that peace to continue.

People have a right to honor whoever they wish to honor.  Would you be fine with a law that said they can't?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Why is this an issue now 150 years after the war where former rival combatants made peace with each other?  Maybe some don't want that peace to continue.

People have a right to honor whoever they wish to honor.  Would you be fine with a law that said they can't?

 

 

You are right. The monuments should have been destroyed (or at least put in museums) over 100 years ago. And if you think the combatants made peace after the Civil War you surely do not live in the south. The ancestors here are very angry about that war and drive around in pickup trucks with rebel flags blazing in the back. And ever since Trump won they have been out in force more than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

Nonsense.  Not by any rational definition would they be considered terrorists.  Now John Brown, hst2's hero, would certainly fit the definition.

You frequently cite the thoughts of Lysander Spooner. He was a big fan of John Brown. Why do you and Spooner part company on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ncbirdfan said:

You are right. The monuments should have been destroyed (or at least put in museums) over 100 years ago. And if you think the combatants made peace after the Civil War you surely do not live in the south. The ancestors here are very angry about that war and drive around in pickup trucks with rebel flags blazing in the back. And ever since Trump won they have been out in force more than ever.

I said the combatants and you are talking about ancestors.  Fail.

Interesting that you want the monuments, many of which were purchased with private funds destroyed.  You would fit right in with terrorists with that kind of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hst2 said:

You frequently cite the thoughts of Lysander Spooner. He was a big fan of John Brown. Why do you and Spooner part company on this?

I believe in the rule of law.  Am I supposed to agree with everything he supported?  Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

I wonder if the confederacy would have had statues of people like Grant had they won. 

Actually, I don't wonder too much, the answer is pretty obvious.

Excellent point!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

I said the combatants and you are talking about ancestors.  Fail.

Interesting that you want the monuments, many of which were purchased with private funds destroyed.  You would fit right in with terrorists with that kind of thinking.

Well, in case you didn't know, the combatants are dead. And from what I hear from the ancestors, they didn't make peace before they died. They went home defeated and full of anger and they kept it to their graves. That's why their ancestors are mad as well.

And as well as being privately-funded...That really means nothing if it is on public property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

I believe in the rule of law.  Am I supposed to agree with everything he supported?  Weird.

Even a law that oppresses?

You frequently say you support equality "under the law". Your response here suggests that you also support inequality "under the law".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ncbirdfan said:

Well, in case you didn't know, the combatants are dead. And from what I hear from the ancestors, they didn't make peace before they died. They went home defeated and full of anger and they kept it to their graves. That's why their ancestors are mad as well.

And as well as being privately-funded...That really means nothing if it is on public property.

They had reunions at different battlefields where the soldiers did shake hands and make peace with each other. The government understood and treated Confederate veterans as US military veterans.  Why do you harbor such hatred when the ones who fought against each other made peace with each other?

So you would destroy monuments paid for by private citizens just because they are located on a public National Battlefield?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hst2 said:

Even a law that oppresses?

You frequently say you support equality "under the law". Your response here suggests that you also support inequality "under the law".

No, not agreeing with murdering innocent people does not mean I support inequality under the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smokey 1 said:

They had reunions at different battlefields where the soldiers did shake hands and make peace with each other. The government understood and treated Confederate veterans as US military veterans.  Why do you harbor such hatred when the ones who fought against each other made peace with each other?

So you would destroy monuments paid for by private citizens just because they are located on a public National Battlefield?  

I harbor no hatred. I just am reporting to you what people say here. I am a white business owner and because of that other white people let their guard down with me. Truthfully, I never thought much of aftereffects of the Civil War until I moved here. Some people just cannot let things go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smokey 1 said:

They had reunions at different battlefields where the soldiers did shake hands and make peace with each other. The government understood and treated Confederate veterans as US military veterans.  Why do you harbor such hatred when the ones who fought against each other made peace with each other?

So you would destroy monuments paid for by private citizens just because they are located on a public National Battlefield?  

It's not them we are having the problem with. It's the rabble hiding behind them.  No one is suggesting battlefield monuments should be taken down that I know of. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

No, not agreeing with murdering innocent people does not mean I support inequality under the law.

Are people who would hold you in bondage and deprive you of your natural rights "innocent people" just because they passed a law that said they could? Do you think you would feel that way if you were held in bondage?

Were the Nazis who legally stripped Jews of their citizenship and seized their property and restricted their natural rights "innocent"? Where do you draw the line?

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hst2 said:

Are people who would hold you in bondage "innocent people" just because the law allows them to? Do you think you would feel that way if you were held in bondage?

Were the Nazis who legally stripped Jews of their citizenship and seized their property and restricted their natural rights "innocent"? Where do you draw the line?

The people who John Brown chopped up in Kansas were not slave owners.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

It's not them we are having the problem with. It's the rabble hiding behind them.  No one is suggesting battlefield monuments should be taken down that I know of. 

 

I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

The people who John Brown chopped up in Kansas were not slave owners.  

You realize Lee led the force that captured Brown? They spoke amicably afterwards and left with respect for each other. There was a war in Kansas if you didn't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smokey 1 said:

The people who John Brown chopped up in Kansas were not slave owners.  

They supported holding men in bondage and would turn you over to authorities to hold you in bondage if given the opportunity. Holding men in bondage could not exist without their support. How far are you willing to go to support such a thing?  

Lee captured Blacks in the free north and took them south to be held in bondage. Would it have been wrong to kill him to prevent him from doing that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, ncbirdfan said:

I'm not.

It's important to make the distinction between honoring personal sacrifice and honoring a bankrupt anachronistic social system.

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now