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.

 

Statue of Confederate General R.E.Lee Removed.

page: 14
25
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: The3murph
1. NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

2, Those people were not Americans.


The second the confederacy tried to break off and decided to go to war with the PRESIDENT of the US over slavery, they were no longer Americans, and why does that make a difference? Bad actions are bad, I don't care what land mass you were born on. Slavery is wrong. The revolutionary war was not about slavery. It was about England imposing unfair tariffs and not giving the colonists representation in the government.

And to act like African American slaves weren't mistreated or executed for disobedience is straight up laughable. Yeah they didn't have mass executions and death camps, because that doesn't make sense when slaves are part of the economy and made their lives easier. They aren't just going to kill them all, they kept them in fear for their lives so they wouldn't try to escape.


The SOVEREIGN States had, and HAVE, the right to leave the union in the same manner in which they joined it. VOLUNTARILY.

Here is President Eisenhower's take on General Robert Edward Lee CSA...

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower




posted on May, 24 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I believe that Ike is a better judge of who is an American than some random dude on the interwebs.

Deo Vindice



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: The3murph
I believe that Ike is a better judge of who is an American than some random dude on the interwebs.

Deo Vindice


I honestly don't think it matters. Everybody's got an opinion. If I started a rebellious force today and tried to take over the government, I'd probably be shot on the spot and my entire army massacred and we'd go down as traitors, regardless of our faith courage or perseverance, even if I was the best leader in History. Hitler was also a great leader and battle strategist and believed in god. None of that makes somebody a good person worthy of monuments built in their honor. Rebels are traitors to their flag. End of story.

The funny thing about all this , is that America probably would have been way better off if they just let the stupid south leave the union. They have been holding our country back for centuries with their primitive mentality and religious fundamentalism. They are like 50 years behind the rest of the civilized world with their bigotry and racism that still goes on to this day. Screw the rebel flag.
edit on 5 25 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: The3murph
I believe that Ike is a better judge of who is an American than some random dude on the interwebs.

Deo Vindice


I honestly don't think it matters. Everybody's got an opinion. If I started a rebellious force today and tried to take over the government, I'd probably be shot on the spot and my entire army massacred and we'd go down as traitors, regardless of our faith courage or perseverance, even if I was the best leader in History. Hitler was also a great leader and battle strategist and believed in god. None of that makes somebody a good person worthy of monuments built in their honor. Rebels are traitors to their flag. End of story.

The funny thing about all this , is that America probably would have been way better off if they just let the stupid south leave the union. They have been holding our country back for centuries with their primitive mentality and religious fundamentalism. They are like 50 years behind the rest of the civilized world with their bigotry and racism that still goes on to this day. Screw the rebel flag.


Your ENTIRE post is EXACTLY WHY many Southrons desired in 1860 and many still desire today a political divorce from you money grubbing, insolent, yankee poltroons.

Funny how when California discussed Secession because they are as butthurt over the 2016 election as Southrons were over the 1860 election nobody spoke of invading them with an army and forcing them at the point of a bayonet to reamain in this "free country".

"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
~President Jefferson Davis

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
~ President Jefferson Davis


edit on 25-5-2017 by The3murph because: spell



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: The3murph
Funny how when California discussed Secession because they are as butthurt over the 2016 election as Southrons were over the 1860 election nobody spoke of invading them with an army and forcing them at the point of a bayonet to reamain in this "free country".


Probably because unlike 1860 they did not actually secede and then attempt to seize Federal land. You had your shot at independence and then you blew it.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Funny how when California discussed Secession because they are as butthurt over the 2016 election as Southrons were over the 1860 election nobody spoke of invading them with an army and forcing them at the point of a bayonet to reamain in this "free country".


Probably because unlike 1860 they did not actually secede and then attempt to seize Federal land. You had your shot at independence and then you blew it.


Which federal, f not capitalized out of principle, land would that have been? Forts Sumter and Pickens which were on STATE land leased to the national government? The federal arsenals in the several States?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: The3murph
Which federal, f not capitalized out of principle, land would that have been? Forts Sumter and Pickens which were on STATE land leased to the national government? The federal arsenals in the several States?


Yup, those are the ones. Did the leases expire? That was rhetorical.

If they didn't get greedy they may not have gotten trounced.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: The3murph
Which federal, f not capitalized out of principle, land would that have been? Forts Sumter and Pickens which were on STATE land leased to the national government? The federal arsenals in the several States?


Yup, those are the ones. Did the leases expire? That was rhetorical.

If they didn't get greedy they may not have gotten trounced.



After the secession of the States those became State and then after the organization of the Confederate Government at Montgomery in Feb of '61 Confederate property.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: The3murph
After the secession of the States those became State...


Because they said so? That's not how it works. They tried to take the rest of the Union's property and got a beat down. It really wasn't well thought out, it's kinda like the Barbarosa of the South.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Oh, Really? Do tell me how the south was carried on the backs of barely a couple hundred thousand blacks. Around 1% of "the south" owned slaves. Logical fallacy much?



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Articles like this prove how little people actually know about the civil war. If you think Lincoln is a hero and we went to war over 1% of the population owning slaves, then you're an idiot. Erasing history by destroying monuments is something muslims do.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Luceononuro
a reply to: olaru12

Around 1% of "the south" owned slaves. Logical fallacy much?


It really depended on the state. Some had larger percentages than others, but it looks to me like 1% is a pretty low estimate.

www.civil-war.net...



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Luceononuro

Erasing history by destroying monuments is something muslims do.


Fake news: the monuments are not being destroyed - they are being moved off government property.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: The3murph

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: The3murph
1. NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

2, Those people were not Americans.


The second the confederacy tried to break off and decided to go to war with the PRESIDENT of the US over slavery, they were no longer Americans, and why does that make a difference? Bad actions are bad, I don't care what land mass you were born on. Slavery is wrong. The revolutionary war was not about slavery. It was about England imposing unfair tariffs and not giving the colonists representation in the government.

And to act like African American slaves weren't mistreated or executed for disobedience is straight up laughable. Yeah they didn't have mass executions and death camps, because that doesn't make sense when slaves are part of the economy and made their lives easier. They aren't just going to kill them all, they kept them in fear for their lives so they wouldn't try to escape.


The SOVEREIGN States had, and HAVE, the right to leave the union in the same manner in which they joined it. VOLUNTARILY.

Here is President Eisenhower's take on General Robert Edward Lee CSA...

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower



BWAHAHAHAH

Robert E Lee revered the constitution so much he trash canned the American constitution and decided to go with a different one....what?!?!

That is literally the funniest history based comment I have maybe ever seen...


What he never acted disheartened????


He walked weeping onto the battlefield after Gettysburg almost catatonic while repeating over and over. "It's all my fault boys.."

Because it was..... his subordinates even told him attacking was a horrible idea.. but he did it anyway and caused the deaths of most (I think most) of his men...


What country in the history of the world, allows pieces of their nation to just leave on a whim???

How would America look today if any generation since its founding could decide to leave for any reason????

A "nation" full of Robert E Lee's got their butts whipped , all while America had one arm tied behind their back....

America didn't even need the upper class to fight... DURING the civil war you had the homestead act and hell the Ivy League boating tournament even didn't miss a year....


It's "lost cause" propaganda.. a well known attempt by the southern elite to put a good face on their treasonous rebellion and defeat...


No real historian would agree with any of your points..

None of them...








edit on 26-5-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Luceononuro
Articles like this prove how little people actually know about the civil war. If you think Lincoln is a hero and we went to war over 1% of the population owning slaves, then you're an idiot. Erasing history by destroying monuments is something muslims do.


Way more than 1% of the south owned slaves and more than 1% of the north did too...

Your right Lincoln had no desire to free the slaves.. but that just makes it way worse for the south....

Because, as you just said, they rebeled out of fear they were "coming for our slaves".. when no one was coming for their slaves....

Southern elite "fire eaters" used the same tired tactic that republicans use today...

"Do what we say because if not they are coming to get your slaves!!"

Even though just MENTIONING a gun ban and confiscation would be political suicide...

Even though there is no law enforcement agency or military who would be willing to enforce it....

Exactly the same way without succession Lincoln never goes to war and NEVER frees the slaves...



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Way more than 1% of the south owned slaves and more than 1% of the north did too...



I was reading something recently about the fact that a lot of people would rent slaves from slave owners, so even those who didn't actually own slaves would use them.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Sorry 7% of the south were slave owners if you round up the number of slave holders to 400k on your link, and in 1860 there was an approximate 5.5 million citizens in the south.

that still makes 5.1 million people in the south were not slave owners...

Yet folks here still like to use a broad brush to paint the entire south as supporting slavery...

Mmm blaming an entire group for the actions of a few... where have I heard thats not a good thing to do before... Mmmm
edit on 26-5-2017 by Irishhaf because: missed a letter



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

"The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas)."



I don't know where you. Are getting 7% from.. I bet more than 7% of loyalist Americans owned slaves...





edit on 26-5-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Well the entire economy was based around slavery so ... lol

Here is a pretty cool tidbit..

www.history.com...



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Irishhaf

"The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas)."



I don't know where you. Are getting 7% from.. I bet more than 7% of loyalist Americans owned slaves...





1860 census

NPS fact sheet of the civil war

5.5 million people, 400k slave holders as of the censuss...

That is where I am getting the information.

ETA; That is the irritating thing about stats aint it they can be made to say almost anything... you choose yours from one column because it supported your position better, I chose the actual definition of slave ownership (slaveholder) which better supports my position.


edit on 26-5-2017 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2017 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join