Statue of Lee to be removed from Va capital.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbaapc.26300/?st=gallery

[The Architect Of Fate]

But damn did he try hard to do it 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Li...lonization

No, he didn’t try to ‘send’ them anywhere. That word implies force. Lincoln supported voluntary colonization for freed slaves, and also supported their right to remain in the US if they so desired. From your link:

. In his annual December message to Congress that year (his second "State of the Union" Message), he reiterated his strong support for government expenditure on colonization for those who wanted to go, but he also noted that objections to free blacks remaining in the United States were baseless, "if not sometimes malicious."

Boru

Which is why i said he tried .I never said he succeeded. Nor did i say it wasn't voluntary . Nor does it imply force  by defualt .

---

But damn did he try hard to do it 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Li...lonization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia%E2..._relations

Which is why said he tried it didn't say he succeded

[Brian37]

You think that the state can nulify legal contracts that it entered into anytime there is popular support to do so?

Think that is a good precidence?

Sorry, Brian, but I gotta go with OLB on this one. No matter how repugnant you find the Confederate monuments (and I agree with your sentiment), there’s a little thing called ‘due process’. And it matters. A lot.

Boru

I agree with "due process".  It still sucks, and it still is a no brainer.

But lets face it, humans, no matter the nation, when abused are going to react.

It amounts to me which is more understandable in logic. Giving benefit of the doubt to to the wrong side of history, or someone who commits civil unrest in interest of saying, "Stop stepping on my neck".

If I were a judge, and had two cases in front of me. One brought to me by assholes clinging to the past out of fear to keep a horrible symbol in a position of honor up, vs another case where someone or group of people tore down that symbol and dumped it in a river without legal process. Guess who I am going to have more sympathy for?

In an ideal world you are correct "due process" keeps society civil  But what good is any law or "due process" if all it does is maintain a lopsided social structure and perpetuates inequality? The people who want to keep that statue up hide behind "protect history" which is not the point. They want to protect the social structure and dominance through monuments of "honor" which we all know the South was on the wrong side of history.

But at least we both agree it still sucks. But we cant be so rigid in law, to ignore history. If the law was always the law and never meant to be broken, then Harriett  Tubman was a law breaker. I don't know about you, but I am damned pissed that Trump scuttled her image replacing Genocidal Andrew Jackson on the $20. Now if you ask me the real law  breaker was Jackson, not Tubman.

[arewethereyet]

I moved to South Carolina before things were really heating up regarding the Confederate flag atop the capital building. There were protests...the Klan came out in force every weekend. The 'fix' was to move the flag from the flagpole (under the US flag and the SC flag) to a place on the statehouse grounds. They are still fighting that fight. But then, they are still fighting the war there in their minds.

There was a lot of smoke and mirrors with people saying it was the battle flag and not the actual Confederate flag. To me, the whole thing was insane to witness.

It's seen as heritage in many parts of the south and a slap in the face to long dead ancestors who fought in the war to remove the flag and monuments.

A large part of tourism includes places like the Old Slave Market in Charleston, SC. That was never on my list of must see places.

[Drich]

dear dummy when lee took up arms against the union in may of 1861 the worry of slaves being free was not on the agenda. slaves would not be freed till it was clear to lincolon that he was going to loose the war if something was not done. in an effort to open a second 'home front' (with rebelling/free slaves) he threatened Jefferson davis the PoTCS that he had 100 days to sit down and come to terms with the union. because the south was winning they declined and pressed forward. so in dec 1865 the slaves were freed.

This has nothing to do with my point . Weather the Union were saints is meaningless the Confederates were an horrible regime that don't deserve to be honored 

deserve has nothing to do with it moron. reunification by forgivness and honoring the dead so more would not have to die was the point.

If the slaves were the point of the civil war then why weren't they freed in 61? why wait to his second term to free the slaves?

The Confederates fought to defend slavery . What the union did is irrelevant 

4 states out of the 13 who succeeded from the union in their declarations of war listed the potential abolishment of slavery being one of the reason for their discontent. that is 4 states out of the 11+1 territory. and again not all states agreed on everything as slavery was a concern for only 4 states. Why? because slavery was not an issue being discussed at the time. each state wrote their own list of greivances.





The truth is Lincoln was never an abolitionist. he did nto care for black people and his idea once freeing all slaves was to send them back (which he did by the 10,000s of thousands to Liberia. or colonize them in central and south america. 

Which is irrelevant  to why the fact the Confederacy should not be honored 

you don't understand the point. Lincolns late works in the abolition of slavery shows this was not the primary cause. not only that his efforts were not ment to encourage black citizenship, but rather a disciplinary action.

The only slavery issue that was in dispute at the start of the war was congress voted on keeping all black slaves east of the Mississippi. which pissed off these super land barons who had holding in the new territories and wanted to use slaves to help tame the west and run cows. across the Mississippi congress demanded all laborers to be paid in order to help alleviate the flood of immigrants coming from Europe.

This has nothing to do with my point . Weather the Union were saints is meaningless the Confederates were an horrible regime that don't deserve to be honored. They were not be rewarded fool they were being reconciled. they were being consoled, they were being brought back into the fold. take that away and you once again bring division. 

Know it or not dummy lee represents you douche bags now more than ever,

Nope not even 

 as he was a progressive who felt he voice and the voice of his brothers were not being heard in the senate. let alone in the presidency

Nope he was a conservative who felt he voice and the voice of his brothers were not being heard in the senate. let alone in the presidency

 they hated beard man as bad as you are told to hate the orange man

Nope both Lee and Trump are assholes who deserve condemnation 

 taking down the reminders of how your movement (They were democrats with the same socialist based beliefs) is doomed to fail is a mistake because you are not removing a symbol of hate.. 

Nope not my movement nor were they socialist (democrats yes CONSERVATIVE democrats ) and yes it is a symbol of hate 

but the part you are taking away is the reconciliation. what the left sees as a  'right' when they wander off to exercise their rights to try and start over.

Nope were taking away a symbol of hate and you brain dead alternate history is just that

 we not only help you come back home we forgive and even honor the dead as they too are Americans.

There is no US you deluded idiot . THE CONFEDERATES WERE ON YOU SIDE NOT OURS . DEMOCRATES WERE CONSERVATIVES NOT LEFTISTS and no amount of revisionist history will change that .

put more effort into this if you seek a response.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sorry, Brian, but I gotta go with OLB on this one. No matter how repugnant you find the Confederate monuments (and I agree with your sentiment), there’s a little thing called ‘due process’. And it matters. A lot.

Boru

I agree with "due process".  It still sucks, and it still is a no brainer.

But lets face it, humans, no matter the nation, when abused are going to react.

It amounts to me which is more understandable in logic. Giving benefit of the doubt to to the wrong side of history, or someone who commits civil unrest in interest of saying, "Stop stepping on my neck".

If I were a judge, and had two cases in front of me. One brought to me by assholes clinging to the past out of fear to keep a horrible symbol in a position of honor up, vs another case where someone or group of people tore down that symbol and dumped it in a river without legal process. Guess who I am going to have more sympathy for?

In an ideal world you are correct "due process" keeps society civil  But what good is any law or "due process" if all it does is maintain a lopsided social structure and perpetuates inequality? The people who want to keep that statue up hide behind "protect history" which is not the point. They want to protect the social structure and dominance through monuments of "honor" which we all know the South was on the wrong side of history.

But at least we both agree it still sucks. But we cant be so rigid in law, to ignore history. If the law was always the law and never meant to be broken, then Harriett  Tubman was a law breaker. I don't know about you, but I am damned pissed that Trump scuttled her image replacing Genocidal Andrew Jackson on the $20. Now if you ask me the real law  breaker was Jackson, not Tubman.

Then you’d be a lousy judge. No offense.


Boru

[Brian37]

Slavery existed in the North and South prior to and during the war for Independence against Britain. Nobody should deny that even the founders owned slaves. But the war itself was not fought on keeping the institution of slavery, that was the Civil War.

I get shit from both the left and the right bringing this up. But the truth is, that times change, and the bottom line for me is that I am tired of GOP supportes pointing out Lincoln and constantly ignoring Nixon and his Southern Strategy which flipped the parties on social , racial and economic issues.

Even MLK commented on the racism in northern cities and states as being as bad or worse than the south. But long term, as an average, it still remains, and sadly so, that one party the GOP is still stuck on white anxiety. They are not the party of Lincoln.

[arewethereyet]

Sorry, Brian, but I gotta go with OLB on this one. No matter how repugnant you find the Confederate monuments (and I agree with your sentiment), there’s a little thing called ‘due process’. And it matters. A lot.

Boru

I agree with "due process".  It still sucks, and it still is a no brainer.

But lets face it, humans, no matter the nation, when abused are going to react.

It amounts to me which is more understandable in logic. Giving benefit of the doubt to to the wrong side of history, or someone who commits civil unrest in interest of saying, "Stop stepping on my neck".

If I were a judge, and had two cases in front of me. One brought to me by assholes clinging to the past out of fear to keep a horrible symbol in a position of honor up, vs another case where someone or group of people tore down that symbol and dumped it in a river without legal process. Guess who I am going to have more sympathy for?

In an ideal world you are correct "due process" keeps society civil  But what good is any law or "due process" if all it does is maintain a lopsided social structure and perpetuates inequality? The people who want to keep that statue up hide behind "protect history" which is not the point. They want to protect the social structure and dominance through monuments of "honor" which we all know the South was on the wrong side of history.

But at least we both agree it still sucks. But we cant be so rigid in law, to ignore history. If the law was always the law and never meant to be broken, then Harriett  Tubman was a law breaker. I don't know about you, but I am damned pissed that Trump scuttled her image replacing Genocidal Andrew Jackson on the $20. Now if you ask me the real law  breaker was Jackson, not Tubman.

Being a judge is supposed to mean you follow the law as it is written.  Of course that doesn't always happen and sympathies and personal attitudes come into play.  If doing the job correctly a judge will follow law while perhaps tempering it somewhat based on extenuating circumstances...which should not be personal in nature.

At the time of the Civil War the South did think they were on the right side of history.  I think you will find that in most wars and conflicts both sides think they are on the right side.

[The Architect Of Fate]

deserve has nothing to do with it moron. reunification by forgivness and honoring the dead so more would not have to die was the point.

Yes it does . They don't deserve forgiveness nor do their dead deserve honor . If this angers some so be it . 

4 states out of the 13 who succeeded from the union in their declarations of war listed the potential abolishment of slavery being one of the reason for their discontent. that is 4 states out of the 11+1 territory. and again not all states agreed on everything as slavery was a concern for only 4 states. Why? because slavery was not an issue being discussed at the time. each state wrote their own list of greivances.


The truth is Lincoln was never an abolitionist. he did nto care for black people and his idea once freeing all slaves was to send them back (which he did by the 10,000s of thousands to Liberia. or colonize them in central and south america. 

The confederacy  fought to maintain slavery your revisionist history is a total failure and weather Lincoln was a saint is irrelivant .The Confederates were scum . 

you don't understand the point. Lincolns late works in the abolition of slavery shows this was not the primary cause. not only that his efforts were not ment to encourage black citizenship, but rather a disciplinary action.

The Confederates fought to maintain slavery . What Lincoln motivations were is aside the point 

 They were not be rewarded fool they were being reconciled. they were being consoled, they were being brought back into the fold. take that away and you once again bring division. 

It didn't say they were being rewarded IDIOT . And no they didn't deserve to be reconciled ,And if division is the result of taking these blights away then so be it .

put more effort into this if you seek a response.

I give your nonesense more effort then it ever deserved clown

[onlinebiker]

I agree with "due process".  It still sucks, and it still is a no brainer.

But lets face it, humans, no matter the nation, when abused are going to react.

It amounts to me which is more understandable in logic. Giving benefit of the doubt to to the wrong side of history, or someone who commits civil unrest in interest of saying, "Stop stepping on my neck".

If I were a judge, and had two cases in front of me. One brought to me by assholes clinging to the past out of fear to keep a horrible symbol in a position of honor up, vs another case where someone or group of people tore down that symbol and dumped it in a river without legal process. Guess who I am going to have more sympathy for?

In an ideal world you are correct "due process" keeps society civil  But what good is any law or "due process" if all it does is maintain a lopsided social structure and perpetuates inequality? The people who want to keep that statue up hide behind "protect history" which is not the point. They want to protect the social structure and dominance through monuments of "honor" which we all know the South was on the wrong side of history.

But at least we both agree it still sucks. But we cant be so rigid in law, to ignore history. If the law was always the law and never meant to be broken, then Harriett  Tubman was a law breaker. I don't know about you, but I am damned pissed that Trump scuttled her image replacing Genocidal Andrew Jackson on the $20. Now if you ask me the real law  breaker was Jackson, not Tubman.

Being a judge is supposed to mean you follow the law as it is written.  Of course that doesn't always happen and sympathies and personal attitudes come into play.  If doing the job correctly a judge will follow law while perhaps tempering it somewhat based on extenuating circumstances...which should not be personal in nature.

At the time of the Civil War the South did think they were on the right side of history.  I think you will find that in most wars and conflicts both sides think they are on the right side.

It takes a real sociopath to go join "the bad guys"...