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.

 

Lets ERASE our history!

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

You'll probably the subject of a lawsuit!




posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
For example, we don't have statues and monuments to King George of England, but rather to George Washington and such.

What part of this people don't get I don't understand. Strange. I guess Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.


But George Washington owned slaves. Therefore, if we follow the logic train here, any and everything having to do with George Washington should be removed from sight and put into the back halls of some museum so those with really weak egos can survive in this hostile environment. I guess you folks really don't get this at all.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: TrueBrit


To be blunt, the Confederacy had roughly 2 million African American slaves and the Confederate Constitution guaranteed the right of slave ownership. My literal bloodline would still be slaves today if the Confederates won. And the former confederates responded to losing the Civil War by passing the "Black Codes", which replaced the "Slave Codes" which guaranteed our enslavement. This is what literally forced the Northern States to pass the 14th Amendment and to reoccupy the South during the Reconstruction Era. So yeah, their monuments are a slap in the face to citizens like myself & my family.



You would still be a slave if the Confederacy won? Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? Where in the hell did you get all that twisted information and BS? Man, you need to learn some REAL history. The lies you've been fed should be the slap in your face, not the heroes that fought for freedom, most of which didn't own a single slave.

Had Lincoln (the Great Emancipator) not gotten desperate during the first two years of the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation would have never even been written or signed. Hell, he used the captured slaves for his own personal reasons (cooking for Union soldiers, cleaning up after Union soldiers, bathing the Union soldiers, making new clothes for the Union soldiers, etc) while he fought beneath the American Flag, and THAT'S not a slap in your face? Like another poster said, all this madness over the Confederate statues and flags are just kneejerk reactions from people ignorant of history, thanks to some stupid racist piece of # that had the Confederate Flag in two of his pictures. People like myself that have bloodlines leading back to the Confederacy would have never let someone like that in. That's not what we represent.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Except if you actually were to learn history you'd know that the South had no intention of actually ending Slavery and actively seceded from the Union for reasons pertaining to slavery. So it is likely that had enlightenedservent grown up in the south (had the south won the war) he'd be a slave. If not a slave, he certainly wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the rights as a human being that you or I would. You know since the South were the ones who actively resisted Civil Rights and all.
edit on 28-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

They're too cowardly to do that. They need something that doesn't fight back. Something that died 150 years ago. And people always try to compare the Confederates to the Nazis. Talk about ignorant on history.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I hope you realize how many slaves were freed by Confederates and fought for the Confederacy, and how many freed slaves were executed by the Union for wanting something as simple as equal pay while fighting for the Union. Anybody that hates the Confederate Flag for the racism they claim it represents, should also feel the same hatred for the U.S Flag, because it represents the same thing.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


We aren't erasing history though. No one is denying that the Confederacy existed or held a significant part of American history. Just like the Germans have kept the reminders of that era, we too have done the same for the Civil War. There are plenty of historic battlegrounds you can visit, museums, history textbooks you can read, historians you can talk too, history departments at colleges that have professors more than willing to talk to you about it, etc.

These statues and icons aren't history anyways. They are just symbols that represent a warped view of history. They idolize the Confederacy while disavowing its dark sides or ignoring them altogether. You won't see someone display a Confederate flag.


So if it offends a few, tear that # down! If two or more people shed tears over it, then remove it. Take a picture, and put it in some museum.

Washington DC is rife with history. A good bit of it from that era in time. Will the bulldozers and backhoes be gassing up to tear it down next? Just how far do we need to go to please each and every precious snowflake?


I'm sorry I just find hypocrisy here in this fake outrage over these statues being removed. These statues never represented real history. Just distorted history made to idolize people and events. I don't see proudly displaying biased history is conducive to learning non-biased history.

I also have no problems bucking traditions. I think appeal to tradition is the weakest reason to keep doing something, so I have no problem taking down historical things if they misrepresent history or idolize dark times. Where are the statues of slave owners whipping and beating slaves?


Why would any be made? Most slave owners didn't whip and beat their slaves. Another distorted lie. Plus most of the slave owners were too old or rich to fight. They just sat back and wrote the Declarations of Secession while the poor boys fought for their own reasons.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LSU0408

Right, because the South wanted to end the cruel practice of slavery. Uh huh.


Don't worry, I don't expect you to acknowledge the true aspect of it all. It wouldn't fit into your anger.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LSU0408

Right, because the South wanted to end the cruel practice of slavery. Uh huh.


Don't worry, I don't expect you to acknowledge the true aspect of it all. It wouldn't fit into your anger.


Why dont you bring facts about how great the south was and the north was just evil people, i see alot of people repeating this garbage with no proof to back it up.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


We aren't erasing history though. No one is denying that the Confederacy existed or held a significant part of American history. Just like the Germans have kept the reminders of that era, we too have done the same for the Civil War. There are plenty of historic battlegrounds you can visit, museums, history textbooks you can read, historians you can talk too, history departments at colleges that have professors more than willing to talk to you about it, etc.

These statues and icons aren't history anyways. They are just symbols that represent a warped view of history. They idolize the Confederacy while disavowing its dark sides or ignoring them altogether. You won't see someone display a Confederate flag.


So if it offends a few, tear that # down! If two or more people shed tears over it, then remove it. Take a picture, and put it in some museum.

Washington DC is rife with history. A good bit of it from that era in time. Will the bulldozers and backhoes be gassing up to tear it down next? Just how far do we need to go to please each and every precious snowflake?


I'm sorry I just find hypocrisy here in this fake outrage over these statues being removed. These statues never represented real history. Just distorted history made to idolize people and events. I don't see proudly displaying biased history is conducive to learning non-biased history.

I also have no problems bucking traditions. I think appeal to tradition is the weakest reason to keep doing something, so I have no problem taking down historical things if they misrepresent history or idolize dark times. Where are the statues of slave owners whipping and beating slaves?


Why would any be made? Most slave owners didn't whip and beat their slaves. Another distorted lie. Plus most of the slave owners were too old or rich to fight. They just sat back and wrote the Declarations of Secession while the poor boys fought for their own reasons.


Oh yes, not all slave owners whipped and beat their slaves... RIIIIGHT that totally excuses the ones that DID do it. The point is that slavery is a nasty part of our history DIRECTLY associated with the Confederacy and the South. Yes, northern states had slaves and yes racism existed in the North, but the South is the bastion of those ideals. The north quickly abandoned that mentality after the war. The South instead made a point to gripe about it for the next 150 years.

So if you represent the confederacy, you are representing slavery. Plain and simple. Put a confederate general on display? Well display some slave owners mistreating slaves next to it. If you want to be proud of your history, then wear the warts too.

And duh. War is always a ploy meant to sacrifice the poor for the grievances of the rich. The sooner you realize the same about the Civil War, the quicker you'll get on the right track to finally properly understanding that period of history.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: LSU0408

You'll probably the subject of a lawsuit!


I doubt anyone relatively close to me would be offended, hell, I'd probably have to shoot at a few people for trying to steal it for themselves.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Except if you actually were to learn history you'd know that the South had no intention of actually ending Slavery and actively seceded from the Union for reasons pertaining to slavery. So it is likely that had enlightenedservent grown up in the south (had the south won the war) he'd be a slave. If not a slave, he certainly wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the rights as a human being that you or I would. You know since the South were the ones who actively resisted Civil Rights and all.


The soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't fight to retain slavery. They fought for freedom from a tyrannical federal government. We've been over this before, 95 to 97% of the soldiers and leaders in the Confederacy did not own slaves. Robert E. Lee didn't even agree with slavery, and he was a huge mouth for the Confederacy. That alone would have been enough to begin freeing slaves and paying them to work for you instead. You can't prove one way or another, that blacks would still be slaves today, and I can't prove one or another that they wouldn't. So don't sit there and act like he would have been a slave today had the CSA won. The majority didn't own any, they did all their work themselves, so it wasn't far from being over or slowed to a halt. It's almost a guarantee that it would have been abolished well before 1900.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LSU0408

Right, because the South wanted to end the cruel practice of slavery. Uh huh.


Don't worry, I don't expect you to acknowledge the true aspect of it all. It wouldn't fit into your anger.


Why dont you bring facts about how great the south was and the north was just evil people, i see alot of people repeating this garbage with no proof to back it up.


I'm asking if you hold the same standards for the U.S. Flag as you do the Confederate Flag since the same thing happened under both at the same time. Try to follow along.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Except if you actually were to learn history you'd know that the South had no intention of actually ending Slavery and actively seceded from the Union for reasons pertaining to slavery. So it is likely that had enlightenedservent grown up in the south (had the south won the war) he'd be a slave. If not a slave, he certainly wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the rights as a human being that you or I would. You know since the South were the ones who actively resisted Civil Rights and all.


The soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't fight to retain slavery. They fought for freedom from a tyrannical federal government. We've been over this before, 95 to 97% of the soldiers and leaders in the Confederacy did not own slaves. Robert E. Lee didn't even agree with slavery, and he was a huge mouth for the Confederacy. That alone would have been enough to begin freeing slaves and paying them to work for you instead. You can't prove one way or another, that blacks would still be slaves today, and I can't prove one or another that they wouldn't. So don't sit there and act like he would have been a slave today had the CSA won. The majority didn't own any, they did all their work themselves, so it wasn't far from being over or slowed to a halt. It's almost a guarantee that it would have been abolished well before 1900.


None of that means that slavery was on the way out or anything though. And like I said, even if he wasn't a slave he still wouldn't be considered the same as a white person or have the rights of white people.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


We aren't erasing history though. No one is denying that the Confederacy existed or held a significant part of American history. Just like the Germans have kept the reminders of that era, we too have done the same for the Civil War. There are plenty of historic battlegrounds you can visit, museums, history textbooks you can read, historians you can talk too, history departments at colleges that have professors more than willing to talk to you about it, etc.

These statues and icons aren't history anyways. They are just symbols that represent a warped view of history. They idolize the Confederacy while disavowing its dark sides or ignoring them altogether. You won't see someone display a Confederate flag.


So if it offends a few, tear that # down! If two or more people shed tears over it, then remove it. Take a picture, and put it in some museum.

Washington DC is rife with history. A good bit of it from that era in time. Will the bulldozers and backhoes be gassing up to tear it down next? Just how far do we need to go to please each and every precious snowflake?


I'm sorry I just find hypocrisy here in this fake outrage over these statues being removed. These statues never represented real history. Just distorted history made to idolize people and events. I don't see proudly displaying biased history is conducive to learning non-biased history.

I also have no problems bucking traditions. I think appeal to tradition is the weakest reason to keep doing something, so I have no problem taking down historical things if they misrepresent history or idolize dark times. Where are the statues of slave owners whipping and beating slaves?


Why would any be made? Most slave owners didn't whip and beat their slaves. Another distorted lie. Plus most of the slave owners were too old or rich to fight. They just sat back and wrote the Declarations of Secession while the poor boys fought for their own reasons.


Oh yes, not all slave owners whipped and beat their slaves... RIIIIGHT that totally excuses the ones that DID do it. The point is that slavery is a nasty part of our history DIRECTLY associated with the Confederacy and the South. Yes, northern states had slaves and yes racism existed in the North, but the South is the bastion of those ideals. The north quickly abandoned that mentality after the war. The South instead made a point to gripe about it for the next 150 years.

So if you represent the confederacy, you are representing slavery. Plain and simple. Put a confederate general on display? Well display some slave owners mistreating slaves next to it. If you want to be proud of your history, then wear the warts too.

And duh. War is always a ploy meant to sacrifice the poor for the grievances of the rich. The sooner you realize the same about the Civil War, the quicker you'll get on the right track to finally properly understanding that period of history.


The Confederacy didn't start until 1861 (December 20, 1860 if you want to be technical). The U.S. represented slavery for 255 years before the Confederacy was born. That's exactly what I mean by people relating slavery to the Confederacy. You do it out of pure hatred. And no, it doesn't excuse the abuse some slaves had to take, and not one single person agrees with the treatment they received.

Why put a slave, much less a beaten slave, next to a Confederate General? I told you most didn't own a slave. But since you want to go there, why don't you put slaves in Union uniforms asking for equal pay to the white soldier and being executed by Union Generals that fought under Lincoln's command?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
The Confederacy didn't start until 1861 (December 20, 1860 if you want to be technical). The U.S. represented slavery for 255 years before the Confederacy was born. That's exactly what I mean by people relating slavery to the Confederacy. You do it out of pure hatred. And no, it doesn't excuse the abuse some slaves had to take, and not one single person agrees with the treatment they received.

Why put a slave, much less a beaten slave, next to a Confederate General? I told you most didn't own a slave. But since you want to go there, why don't you put slaves in Union uniforms asking for equal pay to the white soldier and being executed by Union Generals that fought under Lincoln's command?


Sorry buddy, no one but other Southerns believe that the Confederacy didn't represent the ability to own slaves. You can try to downplay slavery's significance to the south all you want, but you are wrong. The Southern economy was literally built around slavery. Just because you didn't own slaves doesn't mean you didn't interact with them. You could have been one of those guys who runs down escaped slaves, or a farm hand tasked with looking after slaves, or someone who worked for slave auctions.

Literally the entire animosity between the North and the South was because of slavery. Back in the 1780's it was an economic and political issue, but over the next 70 - 80 years it became a social issue too.
edit on 28-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Except if you actually were to learn history you'd know that the South had no intention of actually ending Slavery and actively seceded from the Union for reasons pertaining to slavery. So it is likely that had enlightenedservent grown up in the south (had the south won the war) he'd be a slave. If not a slave, he certainly wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the rights as a human being that you or I would. You know since the South were the ones who actively resisted Civil Rights and all.


The soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't fight to retain slavery. They fought for freedom from a tyrannical federal government. We've been over this before, 95 to 97% of the soldiers and leaders in the Confederacy did not own slaves. Robert E. Lee didn't even agree with slavery, and he was a huge mouth for the Confederacy. That alone would have been enough to begin freeing slaves and paying them to work for you instead. You can't prove one way or another, that blacks would still be slaves today, and I can't prove one or another that they wouldn't. So don't sit there and act like he would have been a slave today had the CSA won. The majority didn't own any, they did all their work themselves, so it wasn't far from being over or slowed to a halt. It's almost a guarantee that it would have been abolished well before 1900.


None of that means that slavery was on the way out or anything though. And like I said, even if he wasn't a slave he still wouldn't be considered the same as a white person or have the rights of white people.


Well, we all have the right to our own opinion. I fully disagree with you though.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Except if you actually were to learn history you'd know that the South had no intention of actually ending Slavery and actively seceded from the Union for reasons pertaining to slavery. So it is likely that had enlightenedservent grown up in the south (had the south won the war) he'd be a slave. If not a slave, he certainly wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the rights as a human being that you or I would. You know since the South were the ones who actively resisted Civil Rights and all.


The soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't fight to retain slavery. They fought for freedom from a tyrannical federal government. We've been over this before, 95 to 97% of the soldiers and leaders in the Confederacy did not own slaves. Robert E. Lee didn't even agree with slavery, and he was a huge mouth for the Confederacy. That alone would have been enough to begin freeing slaves and paying them to work for you instead. You can't prove one way or another, that blacks would still be slaves today, and I can't prove one or another that they wouldn't. So don't sit there and act like he would have been a slave today had the CSA won. The majority didn't own any, they did all their work themselves, so it wasn't far from being over or slowed to a halt. It's almost a guarantee that it would have been abolished well before 1900.


None of that means that slavery was on the way out or anything though. And like I said, even if he wasn't a slave he still wouldn't be considered the same as a white person or have the rights of white people.


Well, we all have the right to our own opinion. I fully disagree with you though.


We all have the right to our own opinion, but not our own facts.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a downplay. It would be like you going to war to fight for freedom because that's what you were told, not knowing that in those declarations of war, you were also fighting for other things. Do you honestly think you could round up enough people to fight for, OR against, slavery? Absolutely not. It wasn't even a forethought in the first two years of war.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And what are your facts? That the soldiers fought to retain slavery? That's become an eye roller and a head shaker. Totally false, just a twisted lie to make the Confederacy look evil. I understand you'll never acknowledge that, so you don't even have to respond, we're getting nowhere.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join