Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sprightly

Why Are So Many Fascist Monuments Still Standing in Italy?

308 posts in this topic

54 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Sorry, buddy. We live in a republic. If the white people want to keep the statues, they need to elect leaders who will do it. Sucks to be white, in this case. Sometimes they just don't get everything they want. It just doesn't seem fair. :mad:

Do you object to referendums across the board or just when you think your side might lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PinkFlamingo said:

These North/South discussions are becoming excruciatingly boring. Same posters, same words over and over and over again. :rolleyes:

Clue: there are no new arguments to be had regarding the Civil War. 

 

Nor are there likely to be any if discussion of the subject is suppressed as you apparently want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the Italians want to tear down fascist monuments, let them. (If you read the article, they have taken down many).

If US cities, towns decide to tear down CSA monuments, let them.

Such a fuss.

Were I defending the CSA memorials not sure I would put forth the argument that fascist memorials are still standing! Seems an odd sort of exemplar! 😅😅😅

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


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

Sorry, buddy. We live in a republic. If the white people want to keep the statues, they need to elect leaders who will do it. Sucks to be white, in this case. Sometimes they just don't get everything they want. It just doesn't seem fair. :mad:

They don't need politicians to allow people to have statues of whoever they choose to, they only need to put them on private property and there isn't at thing the law can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, stevez51 said:

So when did Francis Scott Key become a confederate ..???

Can't fix stupid.  I saw the other day they have a fence around the statue now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hst2 said:

Don't we all think of that when we see a Union statue?

Maybe you ..... not me. I am sure the Union soldiers did some pretty terrible things...things that you will not see in 'cleansed' history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VOSA said:

Nor are there likely to be any if discussion of the subject is suppressed as you apparently want to do.

Every position regarding the Civil War has been taken, discussed and argued in the many years since. No one on this forum is going to have a thought about the Civil War that hasn't been thought before. 

Share this post


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

Every position regarding the Civil War has been taken, discussed and argued in the many years since. No one on this forum is going to have a thought about the Civil War that hasn't been thought before. 

So?  No one is forcing you to read or post on the thread.  If it is boring to you why even bother opening it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

If the Italians want to tear down fascist monuments, let them. (If you read the article, they have taken down many).

If US cities, towns decide to tear down CSA monuments, let them.

Such a fuss.

Were I defending the CSA memorials not sure I would put forth the argument that fascist memorials are still standing! Seems an odd sort of exemplar! 😅😅😅

Can we also tear down Marshall's statues and MLK's ....I am sure they scare some people....the one in DC looks pretty imposing. ;)

Ohhh and while at it.....lets take down the Washington monument....my wife is offended.....she feels it is phallic.

Get where I am going with this?

Share this post


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

So?  No one is forcing you to read or post on the thread.  If it is boring to you why even bother opening it?

Because she would have no place else to complain. Very simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Guido2 said:

Because she would have no place else to complain. Very simple.

:D:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

I never said he didn't oppose slavery where it existed, I said he said he wouldn't try to abolish it where it existed.  Why do you have to lie?

Then why did every article of secession identify the loss of the right to own slaves as a reason for secession?

 

Be real -- not an apologist.

 

The Civil War was fought because the South was going to lose lots of free slave labor and human trafficking wealth.

An agrarian economy in the 1850's was not viable without SLAVES. -- They are called Combines, Harvesters, Tractors, Grain Threshers ... today.

Just admit it.

AS reference 1

 

"On February 2, 1861, Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”

 

http://www.historynet.com/which-states-referred-to-slavery-in-their-cause-of-secession.htm

 

ARe you that naive, obtuse, or just bigoted?

A question, not an indictment.

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karlydee2 said:

Then why did every article of secession identify the loss of the right to own slaves as a reason for secession?

Because they knew Lincoln would oppose any expansion of slavery into the western territories (states) which would tip the balance of power to the free states.

Quote

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.  Lincoln's first inaugural address.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Because they knew Lincoln would oppose any expansion of slavery into the western territories (states) which would tip the balance of power to the free states.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Address the Seceding States articles of secession -- and stop being an apologist.

 

Regardless of the BS Lincoln said -- the Seceding States KNEW without doubt or reservation the Emancipation Proclamation was and would be the end result of Federal Doctrine.-- Hence the War.

 

Be real -- not a fake apologist

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


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

A lot of Hitler statues in Europe, are there?

There are pictures of him at Dachau.  I have seen them.  What is your point?  Do you think we should "always forget?"  What happened to "Never Forget?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Because they knew Lincoln would oppose any expansion of slavery into the western territories (states) which would tip the balance of power to the free states.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Well the Missouri Compromise of 1819-1820 was already settled law.

 

So WTH are you talking about?

 

BY law onl;y OK, NM, AZ, and California could have been Slave States.

 

So as George Carlin would say -- you're Full OF ....

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

Address the Seceding States articles of secession -- and stop being an apologist.

 

Regardless of the BS Lincoln said -- the Seceding States KNEW without doubt or reservation the Emancipation Proclamation was and would be the end result of Federal Doctrine.-- Hence the War.

 

Be real -- not a fake apologist

I am not an apologist for anything.  

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't exist when the states seceded so I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  The simple explanation is that slavery caused secession and secession caused the war.  Lincoln would not have invaded the south to free the slaves, he invaded to preserve the union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

I am not an apologist for anything.  

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't exist when the states seceded so I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  The simple explanation is that slavery caused secession and secession caused the war.  Lincoln would not have invaded the south to free the slaves, he invaded to preserve the union. 

Then why did every single state that seceded list protection of SLAVERY as a/the reason?

And I blew away your western expansion BS -- The Missouri Compromise would have created 4 new slave sates and 14 new free states

 

If Lincoln did nothing there would have been 31-19 free to Slave

 

Well 29 -19 because HI and AK were late to the game

 

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karlydee2 said:

Then why did every single state that seceded list protection of SLAVERY as a/the reason?

And I blew away your western expansion BS -- 

 

I would suppose they thought that the compromise would be invalidated due to Lincoln's opposition to the expansion of slavery.  Lincoln didn't say he wouldn't do anything about slavery where it didn't exist yet at the time of his election.  

I am not arguing that the states didn't secede due to the protection of slavery.  What I am arguing is that if the states didn't secede there would not have been a war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Because she would have no place else to complain. Very simple.

It's like rubbernecking when passing an accident on 95...sometimes you just can't help but slowdown and look  :P

Share this post


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

I would suppose they thought that the compromise would be invalidated due to Lincoln's opposition to the expansion of slavery.  Lincoln didn't say he wouldn't do anything about slavery where it didn't exist yet at the time of his election.  

I am not arguing that the states didn't secede due to the protection of slavery.  What I am arguing is that if the states didn't secede there would not have been a war. 

And I'm saying they knew there would be a war over slavery sooner or later -- 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

And I'm saying they knew there would be a war over slavery sooner or later -- 

Lincoln would have had no legal basis to go to war against states that had legal slavery.

Here is Lincoln's position as stated in a letter to Horace Greeley after the states had seceded.

Quote

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

The secession of the states gave Lincoln the legal basis he wanted to go to war.

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Lincoln would have had no legal basis to go to war against states that had legal slavery.

Here is Lincoln's position as stated in a letter to Horace Greeley after the states had seceded.

 

We are talking past each other.

1. I stipulate Lincoln was primarily focused on preserving the Union

2. He probably would have allowed slavery per the Missouri Compromise 

3. The Confederate Secessionist States, realized it would never be his call with a 29-19 Free to Slave state proportion -- Plain math means that Slavery would be abolished by law ( and I doubt he would have vetoed it)

4. Ergo -- they preemptively seceded.

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

We are talking past each other.

1. I stipulate Lincoln was primarily focused on preserving the Union

2. He probably would have allowed slavery per the Missouri Compromise 

3. The Confederate Secessionist States, realized it would never be his call with a 29-19 Free to Slave state proportion -- Plain math means that Slavery would be abolished by law ( and I doubt he would have vetoed it)

4. Ergo -- they preemptively seceded.

I agree.

Share this post


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

I agree.

Now ask yourself this:

 

If Lincoln was such a staunch UNION PRESERVATIONIST -- why did he issue the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION in the middle of the WAR?

Without the EP -- there could have been a chance to re-unify

 

One he issued that -- it was war to the end.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0