One more reason to hate UNC
- Thread starter Swimcat76
- Start date
Why celebrate traitors with statues in the first place?
I wish we had books or something to preserve that history. Personally I’m not a fan of celebrating the odious parts of ours with canonizing sculptures on public spaces.
Funny, we all cheered when Saddams statue fell. Is history!!!ZOMG1
Funny, we all cheered when Saddams statue fell. Is history!!!ZOMG1
They spent $400K trying to protect it. I guess the $17M spent protecting the fake titles was money better spent.
I can feel it, this is the thread that will change minds and put the confederate soldier statute debate to rest.
If people want to be associated with the losers, so be it.
I missed the part when they moved Saddam's statue to the US.
Maybe liberal douches like you should move to Iraq and tell them to change their statue policy.
Traitors don't deserve to be honored, much less ones that murdered thousands of people and fought to enslave others.
However, I don't agree with the vigilante method used to take it down.
Seceded from the USA then engaged in war with the USA. That's what a traitor is.
Thank You. It’s one thing to have debate and dicussion about how to treat these statues. It’s another thing all together to enact your own sense of “justice” and commit vandalism.
The sad thing is I bet a quarter of those criminals were just there for the violence and vandalism. The other quarter there only because they were told that statue was “bad.” I bet only a handful there could actually talk to the history of it and why it was put there.
So, some of them so riled up at a statue should research the name “Tarheel” a little bit. I think they would be much surprised.
We don’t destroy property in this country just because we don’t like it. Would some of you supporting this act of vandalism be ok if a group of Christians went down to Arkansas to tear down the Bahphomet statue? I bet not. Did some of you agree with the Taliban blowing up centuries old monuments just because it offended their religion? I would hope not.
I’m personally not offended by a statue nor it’s removal. I understand why some people might be offended by said existence or removal of it. Not a person in this country alive today was a slave nor a slave owner. With that being said, if a statue is causing that much interference with ones daily life, maybe just maybe, you have a blessed and charmed life. Everyone one of those kids are in college and have a priveleged chance to be there. Some probably worked harder to get there than others, nonethelsss, they are all their with an equal chance to earn a degree (unless they are on a sports team in which well...nvm.)
Think. Debate. Discourse. Learn. Protest.
But tearing down public/private property just because you don’t like it is an act of a child. And an immature one at that. What next ransacking churches because we don’t like their message? Digging up graves because the person in them was “not nice”? Come on. Let’s be adults.
Well, slavery still illegally exists in the USA. It's just not what it was during the Civil War and earlier era.
I was talking about the systematic enslavement of a race of people. There are of course many slaves of all races today. Most of them in particular sex slaves and victims of human trafficking which I believe the punishment for its perpetrators should be immediate death.
Seceded because they were treated unfairly; basically the North treated the South as economic slaves thru tariffs.
Excerpt from speech given at "Silent Sam" statue dedication:
"
The present generation, I am persuaded, scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South – When “the bottom rail was on top” all over the Southern states, and to-day, as a consequence the purest strain of the Anglo Saxon is to be found in the 13 Southern States – Praise God.
I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head."
This statue was erected nearly 50 years after the Civil War. With those thoughts still in mind. Not sure why anyone would defend that as a "piece of history" that needs to be celebrated.
"
The present generation, I am persuaded, scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South – When “the bottom rail was on top” all over the Southern states, and to-day, as a consequence the purest strain of the Anglo Saxon is to be found in the 13 Southern States – Praise God.
I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head."
This statue was erected nearly 50 years after the Civil War. With those thoughts still in mind. Not sure why anyone would defend that as a "piece of history" that needs to be celebrated.
Meanwhile, the South fought to have actual slaves.
Nobody is "celebrating" it.
"Acknowledging" is different from "celebrating".
We have a Holocaust Museum in DC; are we "celebrating" that?
The south fought for states' rights.
Slavery (albeit repulsive) was just one of the issues.
A museum is ENTIRELY different than a statue.
Statues sole purposes are to celebrate a person's life and achievements. Is it not? It's not a matter of history.
Just like the traitor (confederate flag) and the holocaust, put that in a museum where, you know, history is meant to be observed and learned.
Statues sole purposes are to celebrate a person's life and achievements. Is it not? It's not a matter of history.
Just like the traitor (confederate flag) and the holocaust, put that in a museum where, you know, history is meant to be observed and learned.
https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.
As James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” wrote in the Washington Post: “In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.” The idea that the war was somehow not about slavery but about the issue of states’ rights was perpetuated by later generations anxious to redefine their ancestors’ sacrifices as a noble protection of the Southern way of life. At the time, however, Southerners had no problem claiming the protection of slavery as the cause of their break with the Union—and the Civil War that followed.
This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.
As James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” wrote in the Washington Post: “In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.” The idea that the war was somehow not about slavery but about the issue of states’ rights was perpetuated by later generations anxious to redefine their ancestors’ sacrifices as a noble protection of the Southern way of life. At the time, however, Southerners had no problem claiming the protection of slavery as the cause of their break with the Union—and the Civil War that followed.
The South fought to keep slavery, first and foremost. Upholding slavery was prominent in each of the states' articles of secession.
In actuality, the South opposed the Northern states' rights to abolish slavery and refusal to return escaped slaves.
[laughing]
History is history. Can't be for one without the other. And if people are really concerned about history, they should know that the dedication speech for this statue included props to the Klan and applause for a story of horse-whipping a black woman.
I don't need to move to Iraq for that, we seem to be doing just fine changing their policies from here.
Last edited:
Federal law stated that fugitive slaves had to be returned, as they were property. The fact of the matter is that the South had a right to secede, no matter the reason, any state did. Without that right the Union would not have been formed originally.
The North wanted to maintain the Union at any cost, even by force. Which in and of itself isn't freedom and Liberty, its forced devotion.
My opinion on this doesn't mean I symapthize with slave owners, but I understand that I'm looking at it from 150 years out.
Only mine is true, the North created an Army to force the original seceding states back into the Union.
This caused the 6 other states to secede.
Who forced the North to end slavery? No one, they freely decided to, then decided the South should follow. If slavery would’ve died a natural death in the US, race relations would’ve been far better off in the long run.
We can go round and round about this, this is no different than any other War. The victor gets to write history.
Only because the founders wouldn’t touch it in the constitution because they knew the southern states would never join the union if the constitution didn’t explicitly say they wouldn’t touch the issue of slavery for a number of years. Sooner or later those who want to rewrite history will have to come to terms with the south’s motivations.
Yes yes. If slavery had continued for, what, 200 more years (?) then race relations would be amazing.
Also, those pesky slave owners would've just naturally gave up the free labor that built them their wealth.
So you agree it was a legal practice.
So the North was fine with it as long as it benefited their needs.
The South’s motivation was that they wanted to form their own Govt. They could see the North was using them, and thought very little of them or their opinion. Much the same as today.
I, like you think slavery was awful, but I nor you lived in the 18th or 19th century.
Even assuming that was true, and it is not, that would have been ridiculously hypocritical of the south to imagine they are being used and thought little of. That would be the absolute kindest way to describe the slavery the committed an entire race of Americans to. Is there any world at all where the civil war does not occur if slavery is not an institution in the south? No.
I recently read up on the wonderful confederate monument Stone Mountain park. It's not just the birthplace of the second iteration of the KKK, it was opened on April 14th, 1965. Why then? Because it was the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
F@&# confederate monuments.
F@&# confederate monuments.