It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real reason for the Removal of The Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue and Grave Site.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Entreri06
The south was subsidizing the north, and the north decided to ban slavery in the south only. That is way different that not thinking that they were getting enough for their taxes. They were getting screwed, and had the right to decide they wanted no part of the union anymore.


Slavery was banned after the civil war started!

Literally every state country and town pays taxes to the Capitol..... Every single one.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
it wasn`t treason that`s why none of them were ever tried for treason. They didn`t try to overthrow the government of the U.S. they merely tried to leave the union, a union that they voluntarily joined. When you voluntarily join a club or an organization based on certain agreements or promises don`t you have the right to leave if those agreements and promises are broken?
if it had been made perfectly clear, at the time that they joined the union, that they would never be allowed to leave for any reason,perhaps many of the states would never have joined.
perhaps that`s why Puerto Rico has consistently refused to seek statehood?


The south decided they were taking their ball and there half of the basketball court and making a new game up completely.

The south was America and the south decided to they no longer wanted to be Americans. But rather then leaving and moving to a country that didn't have taxes and allowed slavery. They decided to steal half of America. And wage war to keep it.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask



Without the racial stuff you still have the fact it is at best the flag of traitors


Then we should ban the American flag, because its also a flag of traitors


Britin should consider us traitors. But since we arnt British that's irrelevant. We are AMERICANS! So that means to is the founding fathers were patriots. If the south won they would be patriots, but not American patriots confederate patriots. To America they are traitors. Just like no bergdahl or benidict Arnold.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Yeah, that's true. Ban the stars and stripes and put the union jack where it belongs. LOL.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

I think you need to look up the definition of treason again... The south tried to leave not overthrow the fed.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakesidepark
The primary impetus for the civil war was not slavery, and not taxes in general...but specifically import tariffs that protected the Northern industrial exports, but cost the Southern states as they were more an agriculture export economy dependent on free trade to compete. The Southern states not only did not benefit from import tariffs (as they had no industrial export base to protect), the South was hurt financially as they depended on imported industrial product more so than the North did.

The tariff fight had went on for decades, and a previous attempt at placing tariffs was killed by the threat of secession of Southern states.

When Lincoln signed a new tariff bill into law in 1861, South Carolina seceded as they had threatened to do. The other states soon followed.

When the South seceded, and created their own Union, the confederate Constitution was essentially IDENTICAL to the U.S. constitution, with one exception - it prohibited tariffs and allowed free trade.

As others pointed out, there were Union slave states during the Civil War; and the Emancipation Proclamation was not made due to Lincoln's good will toward the black race...it was to disrupt the enemy. Pure and simple. Slavery was not ended until well into the war, and only to cripple the southern war machine. There was no 'humanity' in the act.

I firmly believe that slavery would have died in the U.S. without the Civil War, as it did in the other countries that permitted slavery (what, there were other countries that permitted slavery? Say it ain't so!!!). Industrial innovation would have assured that outcome.

Just a further note to Lincoln's 'good will' - had Lincoln lived, and carried out ALL of his plans, history would tell a story of horrors further inflicted upon the black race as they would have been all rounded up and removed from the U.S. and shipped to the newly-established country of Liberia, which was created specifically FOR this purpose. If you read Lincoln's writings, he had nothing to say about 'equality of races', instead he believed that the black race could not be integrated into American society, and could not be as equals, and needed to be removed. If they could no longer be slaves, they had to leave, as they couldn't be integrated. He was only a hero to the black race because he was killed before he could execute his plan to resolve the 'negro' problem created by freeing the slaves.

Hostility toward blacks was aggravated by the brutal Northern occupation of the South after the war; Southern resentment toward the oppression after the war prevented any healing, created a backlash against the blacks in the South, and created the reputation of the South as 'racist'.

As noted earlier...the winners get to re-write the history that is taught. But enough of the original history remains, that if interested, people can still learn the truth. The truth being, that Lincoln should not be hailed as a hero defending human rights...because he was NONE of that. That is history conveniently re-written. "North was against slaves, the South was pro-slavery, the war was all about slavery, therefore it was a just war for the North"...a very simplistic, and dangerously misleading, rewrite of history.

A lot of our history was re-written to the benefits of the winners. But, erasing the true history will just doom us to repeat it...and hell we won't even know it is being repeated without the real record of history to compare it to!

Removing monuments to history will not improve anyone's lives...it will only lead to future tyranny from a central government with no restraints placed upon it by the individual states an the people that are being governed.

Hell we are almost there now!

A side note - another piece of history lost - slave trade was NOT exclusively limited to blacks; many of the original slaves in the colonies were IRISH. The African slave trade came later, and the African slaves were more valued than their Irish counterparts as they did not suffer from that 'catholic ideology'. When trade with African nations opened up to the colonies, they were able to import slaves sold directly to them by African governments (OMG say that ain't so!!! Africans sold their own into slavery???) and no longer needed the more rebellious Irish sold to them from England.





Nice post and all true from what I can remember. But nothing you said changes the fact the south committed treason.

A tariff and tax are the same things. That's so semantics. A tariff is a tax on imports (if memory serves) so the civil war was fought over taxes, as I said multiple times.

If you read the whole thread (as I never do when joining late :p) you'll see I've said a big chunk of your post, maybe not as eloquently. Lol


None of that changes the 1+1=2 of the situation. The constitution has a way to make changes thru the democratic process. The south ignored that and RENOUNCED their American citizenship and attempted to make a new (not American) country.

Obama just passed a questionable trade agreement. If a few states ban together and renounce their citizenship and attack the army. They are traitors committing treason.

This isn't a monachy where you have no say so in your officials. We vote here. Not renounce America and kill people.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

I think you need to look up the definition of treason again... The south tried to leave not overthrow the fed.


They didn't try to leave!!! They trued to take over a huge part of America!! Aka literally the definition of treason. If they packed up and moved there wouldn't have been. Civil war. But no they decided to steal half of America and attack the American army!



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

You really do not understand this, do you?

When the southern states left the union, they formed their own central government and called the group of states the Confederate States of America.

They were still Americans.

When the Civil War broke out, the US was not even 100 years old yet. Many people walking around here in the US didn't say "I'm an American!" most of them identified with what state they were from!

This was such an important thing, that the founding fathers of the US decided that we needed the 10th Amendment of the Constitution: States Rights.

Those states that left the Union at the beginning of the Civil War still considered themselves "Americans", they just didn't like having such a strong central government, because of being screwed over by said central government.

You really should sit down and do the following:

1) Forget everything you think you know about the Civil War.
2) Arm yourself with historical documents from the time period, just before the war, during the war, and after the war.
3) READ all of them.

It will help you understand this period of time better.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Literally not one good argument has been made for the south taking the correct action. It's all a bunch of talking points about slavery, which I didn't mention and false equivalency about how "since we betrayed Great Britain, the south had every right to betray America...


Guaranteed by people who claim to be loyal Americans who wouldn't be if the south had won, assuming they live in the south. They wouldn't be Americans, they would be confederates.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Entreri06

You really do not understand this, do you?

When the southern states left the union, they formed their own central government and called the group of states the Confederate States of America.

They were still Americans.

When the Civil War broke out, the US was not even 100 years old yet. Many people walking around here in the US didn't say "I'm an American!" most of them identified with what state they were from!

This was such an important thing, that the founding fathers of the US decided that we needed the 10th Amendment of the Constitution: States Rights.

Those states that left the Union at the beginning of the Civil War still considered themselves "Americans", they just didn't like having such a strong central government, because of being screwed over by said central government.

You really should sit down and do the following:

1) Forget everything you think you know about the Civil War.
2) Arm yourself with historical documents from the time period, just before the war, during the war, and after the war.
3) READ all of them.

It will help you understand this period of time better.



I grew up in Vicksburg MS arguably the most important city of the war. I know my history.

The country we live in now (aka America) wouldn't be the same country below the mason dixen line. That's like saying "since Canada is in North America they are Americans too."

They renounced there AMERICAN Citizenship and tried to steal half of our country for their own personal gain. That is 100% undenighable and literally the definition of treason.....


Y'all are trying to make the case that because they didn't like the present tax policy that they had every right to steal half the country...

Period if the south won they wouldn't have the American constitution they would have there own. They wouldn't have the American president because they would have there own. They wouldn't have the bill of rights or the American armed forces, they would have their own not American version. The American founding fathers wouldn't be there's they would have different ones.


If the south won the north would have continued being the USA while the south was a new totally different country.
edit on 5-7-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

No, they did NOT renounce their "American" citizenship.

They declared themselves no longer part of the United States.

They still considered themselves "Americans"

Your Canadian analogy is ludicrous.

Your statement of "tried to steal half of our country" shows EXACTLY why the southern states had an issue with the then federal government. They believed strongly in States Rights. Why do you think the used the word Confederate?

And no: Vicksburg was not the most important battle of the War. It was A important battle. But not THE most important.

That was Gettysburg. Ask any historian.

And NO you STILL do not understand the definition of the word Treason.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it does...

They did not use force to take land they voted for it, then used force to defend themselves.

You have yet to give an argument that holds water for the charge of treason.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

I think you need to look up the definition of treason again... The south tried to leave not overthrow the fed.


They didn't try to leave!!! They trued to take over a huge part of America!! Aka literally the definition of treason. If they packed up and moved there wouldn't have been. Civil war. But no they decided to steal half of America and attack the American army!


Uh....they didn't try to 'take over' a part of the country. You speak as if they were an invading force from outside the country that conquered the South against the will of the people living there! This was NOT treason.

The duly elected representatives of the States voted to leave the Union they volunteered to join less than a hundred years previous. In some states the vote was actually cast by the people, not just the elected representatives of the people.

Treason is an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. Secession is not treason if it is the will of the people within the state that chooses to secede. Is this any different than Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union? Do we consider their government treasonous to Russia? NO.

The first state (South Carolina) to secede, so happens to also be the first territory to secede from Great Britain. They became their own country for a short period, before reluctantly joining with the colonies under assurance that their state rights would be upheld. South Carolina voluntarily joined the Union under the will of the people, and voluntarily left the Union under that same will when the commitment of the Union to the States was broken. The Feds refused to leave after they seceded. SC embarked upon an action of war only after the Union refused to recognize their right to secede. That is not treason, nor a takeover, but it was the will of the people that lived there to exercise their right to elf-determination (did I say that? we considered that a righteous act only a hundred years previous!!!).

This is no different than the countries that left the Soviet bloc when they finally had the chance to express the will of the people...and Russia trying to take these countries back by force is no different than the Civil War.

The monuments should remain...but the federal government will try to enforce removal...because a truly honest discussion of the history of the Civil War, the history of slavery, the history of taxation, the history of states' rights, and the history of Lincoln's true intentions and motivations (not the 'whitewashed' history we have been taught about some altruistic man that 'freed the slaves' as a righteous act) will reveal some ugly truths about how our liberties and freedoms are now being taken away by the government; and how the protections of the rights of states to leave the Union (the only recourse when a government has subverted the will of the people) no longer exist. ALL THE WHILE the U.S. supports these same rights to countries around the world (when it suits the U.S. of course - if not they get the same treatment as the South did 150 years ago).

FYI more of the citizens of the Southern states supported secession from the Union than did the populations of the colonies that seceded from Great Britain. Yet we consider the Revolutionary War as a 'just' war. We revere these monuments to that period. Conversely, Lincoln's game with slavery has become a pervasive poison to the history of the war to re-conquer the South. Once again, Lincoln DIDN"T free the slaves because he opposed slavery as an institution - Lincoln did it to gain an advantage in the war, and his writings prove it - he never intended to free the slaves to integrate with the population - he freed them with a plan to round them all up and take them back to Africa - had his plan succeeded, blacks today would be a lot WORSE off living in that hellhole than here. That is the true history of Lincoln, he is only a hero to the black population because Booth ended his ability to carry thru, and the North hid as much of the history as possible in later years to justify their actions in this dark part of history.

Racists that took up the rebel battle flag in the 60's further distort the true history of the events that took place 150 years ago. Racists would be more correct in having Lincoln as their idol rather than the historic fighters of the South, as Lincoln would have done more for their cause had he lived, as his plan 145 years ago was no different than their goals today. Lincoln's opinion of other races was no different than the white supremacists of today. NO DIFFERENT.

That's why, instead of destroying monuments, we need to be learning history - so we don't repeat it.
edit on 5-7-2015 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Entreri06

No, they did NOT renounce their "American" citizenship.

They declared themselves no longer part of the United States.

They still considered themselves "Americans"

Your Canadian analogy is ludicrous.

Your statement of "tried to steal half of our country" shows EXACTLY why the southern states had an issue with the then federal government. They believed strongly in States Rights. Why do you think the used the word Confederate?

And no: Vicksburg was not the most important battle of the War. It was A important battle. But not THE most important.

That was Gettysburg. Ask any historian.

And NO you STILL do not understand the definition of the word Treason.







America is the United States of America. There is only one America and it's called the USA. Canadians arnt Americans because they live on the North American continent. Hell they even came from Europe just like we did...


And if you disagree with the tax rate in a democracy you vote in new people, you don't renounce your American citizenship and take up arms in an attempt to steal half of the country you were born a part of.


No it wasn't Gettysburg. Vicksburg was the key to controlling the supply lines (the MS river). The final battle that mattered was Gettysburg. The south lost the war when they lost Vicksburg. Your the one who needs to ask a historian.


Lincon called Vicksburg "the key to (victory? This word escapes me) and we can't win this war until that key is in our pocket."

The south knew this too that's why vicksburg held as long as they did.

The civil war was fought over taxes (tariffs). The south didn't like there tax rate on imports so they rebelled. All the slavery stuff was war time strategy and propaganda on both sides. If texas does that today it's treason. The constitution has a democratic way to add and give up territory. That wasn't good enough for the south so the renounced AMERICA and decided to steal a huge chunk and make it there no American country.

None of that is debatable. How the flag makes people feel is BS. Feelings are subjective facts are not.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06
The constitution has a democratic way to add and give up territory. That wasn't good enough for the south so the renounced AMERICA and decided to steal a huge chunk and make it there no American country.



Yes the Constitution 'did' have a way - it was called secession, Still is.
They didn't 'steal' a big chunk of the U.S. The individual states, one by one, (in small chunks) VOTED to leave the Union, and (one by one) VOTED to join the new Confederacy. Much the same as the original colonies VOTED to become part of the Union.

It was the Union that subverted the will of the people of the seceding states. Much like the Soviet Union subverted the will of all the countries it took over in the last century. Much like Germany subverted the will of the other European countries in WW1 and WW2.

It's hard sometimes to un-learn the distorted view of history presented to us in the institutions of learning, and realize it is the propaganda of a conqueror, but we must or this Union is headed to a repeat of the history.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06
You definitely had people press ganged into combat. Who wanted no part of the rebellion. However the people who ran the war and made up flags, Who I'm sure committed acts of bravery. Were no more heroes then the 911 hijackers or the school shooters.


I beg to differ here. The Generals and Confederate leaders were nothing like 9/11 --insert your choice Criminals/Terrorists/Government Agents/NWO Agent/Hologram Projection-- or school shooters.

The Confederate States of America and their Army fought a war against OTHER SOLDIERS, not innocent men, women, and children.
The Confederates fought for what they believed in. The saw the Federal Government breaking the Tenth Amendment. They tried protesting. They tried complaining, They tried introducing legislation. All in attempting to redress the wrongs.

In the end they took to armed rebellion, not a campaign of bombing buildings and killing innocents.
edit on 5-7-2015 by TheSemiSkeptic because: Fat fingers plus smartphone keyboard typo



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

The founding fathers were citizens of the crown. They lived in what was considered part of the empire. They answered to England. Many were born in England.

Once they declared their independence and decided they were no longer beholding to the crown, they were indeed traitors as they betrayed their country. Read some of the works of the founding fathers. They admit it themselves even though they believed what they were doing was right.

When the southern states withdrew from the union, the legal framework in place was different than when the colonies declared their independence. Granted there is a lot of debate on the issue and I claim no definitive answer here.

However, since they no longer belonged to the Union, it was not longer their country. Therefore to call them traitors does not make any sense by definition.

But i get the vibe so many embrace today by calling them traitors.

BTW, I think it is a BS and opportunist excuse just to sell the park. If the park belongs to the citizens of the town (the old commons concept with modern modifications) who is the local government to sell it? It does not belong to them in the first place.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06
The south decided they were taking their ball and there half of the basketball court and making a new game up completely.

The south was America and the south decided to they no longer wanted to be Americans. But rather then leaving and moving to a country that didn't have taxes and allowed slavery. They decided to steal half of America. And wage war to keep it.


Give that a rest already. Apparently, you can't even be bothered to read. It wasn't "the Confederacy"; it was "The Confederate States of America". That's right, AMERICA. They didn't decide not to be Americans; thy decided to not be joined with control freaks who wanted more than their fair share of the pie. Any other errors I can clear up for you today?



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Memphis City Counsel votes but Shelby County residents have no vote? Is this not government overreach and abuse? Since when did the City Counsel have legal authority to ignore the Heritage Protection Act of 2013. My morals tell me that disrespecting dead soldiers/landmarks is a bad idea and shows what kind of government we are dealing with here. They won't let Forrest Rest in Peace and would rather start a race baiting conflict over a historical statues and is a revisionist agenda. AC Warton, Myron Lowry are playing race card and need to be called out on this.

ICYMI, Today is Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee.

Since when did Americans become about disrespecting the dead and destroying statues? Where does this stop? Next up will be book burnings.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Entreri06
The south decided they were taking their ball and there half of the basketball court and making a new game up completely.

The south was America and the south decided to they no longer wanted to be Americans. But rather then leaving and moving to a country that didn't have taxes and allowed slavery. They decided to steal half of America. And wage war to keep it.


Give that a rest already. Apparently, you can't even be bothered to read. It wasn't "the Confederacy"; it was "The Confederate States of America". That's right, AMERICA. They didn't decide not to be Americans; thy decided to not be joined with control freaks who wanted more than their fair share of the pie. Any other errors I can clear up for you today?



So different president, different constitution, bill of rights, government, laws, taxes, flag, name and yet they would still be Americans?!?!

How does that work exactly?!?!

So if texas splits in half and half goes to Mexico are the ones born in the Mexican half still texans?!??


By your logic, Canadians and Mexicans are Americans too because we live on the North American continent...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join