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.

 

I know, nobody is banning any flag......

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa



Sadly, most people don't know that the first slave ship docked in Jamestown, Va., in August 1619, a year before the pilgrims dropped anchor at Plymouth Rock.


Wrong.

Slaves first arrived in North America when The Spanish bought them over in 1565.




ST. AUGUSTINE - 1565 In 1565, Pedro Menendez de Aviles(photo) established San Agustine (St. Augustine), the first permanent European (Spanish) settlement in Florida under the terms of King Philip’s Asiento (agreement to colonize Florida), Menendez had three years to import 500 Africans slaves to Florida, and evidence suggests that African slaves from Havana, Cuba, were among St. Augustine’s first settlers



www.thepatrioticvanguard.com...




posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Yes, it's come time that History, (actually just the kind that looks a bit ugly) needs to be erased.


Absolutely not.

Changing a street name is not erasing history. Street names are meant to HONOR the people they are named after. When a city changes its mind as to the honorability of the people it has named its streets after, or simply finds that there are others who are more deserving of that honor, that is their perogotive. It isn't erasing history, it is acknowledging that history marches on.


a reply to: ketsuko


Did Robert E. Lee own slaves? Yes...


Well maybe and maybe not. There is no record of him owning slaves (that I know of) beyond those he inherited from his father-in-law and immediatly freed as per his father-in-law's instructions. The thing that is no mentioned is that it may well have been illegal for him to free those slaves at the time. That deserves a bit of research.

Lee had a complicated relationship with the idea of slavery. He didn't partitularly like it but he thought that it was ordained by God and would end when God ordained it so (i.e. never). He also could not abide abolitionists trying to help God arrive at the day of ordaining it to end.


a reply to: intrptr


Over here we see it in acton too, disappearing the past so future generations won't ask, "Who was Stonewall Jackson"?


No, that won't happen. And even if it did, what would be wrong with that?

Stonewall Jackson was a mutineer and a war criminal long before he became a traitor. In the Mexican-American war he disobeyed a direct order while actively engaged in offensive action (which turned out OK in the end, but it was absolutely an act of mutiny), and fired upon unarmed civilians in retalialeation for the Mexican troops he was facing refusing to surrender (that is a war crime now and then and throughout history, always).

Robert E. Lee and Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson were both brilliant military commanders. There is no doubt about that.

On the other hand, they both had rather ambivalent relationships with the idea of slavery, but then most Americans did at that time, to one degree or another and on one side or another, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. I would personally never propose removing their names from the streets because of their view on slavery or as someone else said we wouldn't have too many founding fathers to honor.

However, one thing that there is no place for in America's honor lists is traitors. There is no just no place in America for traitors to be honored.

Both Lee and Jackson are traitors to the United States. They need to be remembered in history books, not honored by street names, or school names, or what-ever. It is as simple as that.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
As a born and raised Southerner......I could not have said it better myself.......I used to have a bumper sticker that read as follows..........." American by birth.....Southern by the grace of God." a reply to: TrueBrit



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong



Slaves first arrived in North America when The Spanish bought them over in 1565.


Thanks for the correction. So I expect my citation was talking about the first slaves in 'Anglo-America'.

But your date just makes the point even stronger that slavery didn't 'spread into the south' from New England.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

Add in a few doses of propaganda and you can change what people believe about history. We have plenty of examples of that already in this thread.

TheRedneck


I agree. Don't misunderstand me on this. I denounce any attempts to change history or attempts to keep true history from people, but in this case that is not what is happening here.

The names of major streets are changed quite often. In my local area, they changed the name of a street that was named after President Harding and renamed it after MLK Jr.

Does that change affect history in any manner? I don't believe it does. It's purely symbolic and not something to get our panties twisted over.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: introvert

By itself it is a minor thing... but when you look at the overall steady assault on the history surrounding the Civil war, it is comparable.

Everything I listed has happened or is happening right now in various places in the United States, people are trying to erase or hide history to spare feelings... it is wrong.


And they are wrong as well. Like it or not, the Confederacy is not only part of our history, but also culture. I never understood this nonsense, but I don't see how the name of a street matters.
edit on 3-7-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rnaa

I see you know as much about American history as you do about electricity.

I like consistency.


TheRedneck


Sorry, I missed your evidence-oriented rebuttal, Mr. Engineer.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa




Both Lee and Jackson are traitors to the United States.


hey lets play a game... you show me a list of the confederate leaders convicted of treason...



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

Add in a few doses of propaganda and you can change what people believe about history. We have plenty of examples of that already in this thread.

TheRedneck


I agree. Don't misunderstand me on this. I denounce any attempts to change history or attempts to keep true history from people, but in this case that is not what is happening here.

The names of major streets are changed quite often. In my local area, they changed the name of a street that was named after President Harding and renamed it after MLK Jr.

Does that change affect history in any manner? I don't believe it does. It's purely symbolic and not something to get our panties twisted over.


Keep watching. Eventually, you might see something that registers among the rocks and dust. Statues, street names, flags, all actively under attack due to their affiliation to the Civil war. That part is not up for discussion. How far the candy asses are allowed to go with it, is the real question.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And I can't argue with a word of this.

After all, it's New York. They can call their street "Manure Boulevard" if they want. I may not agree with the name change, and I may even state that I don't agree with it, but it's not in Alabama. Now, if some idiot down here ever tried to rename Lee Highway to something else, you're not going to see me around for a little while; I'll be busily getting in the face of said idiot(s).

The real issue IMO is not a street name anyway. It's a conglomeration of removing the Confederate Battlejack from display, removing (desecrating) war memorials, removing statues, teaching distorted history in the schools, generalized propaganda, and yes, removal of 'offensive' names. There truly is a movement to re-write the history of the South... I'm just not going to say this is definitely a part of that movement. Even if it is, it's minor compared to the rest.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa


Sorry, I missed your evidence-oriented rebuttal, Mr. Engineer.

It wasn't a rebuttal; it was a dismissal.

For future reference:

Rebuttal:

noun
1. an act of rebutting, as in a debate.


Dismissal:

noun
1. an act or instance of dismissing.
2. the state of being dismissed.
3. a spoken or written order of discharge from employment, service, enrollment, etc.


TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Yes, it's come time that History, (actually just the kind that looks a bit ugly) needs to be erased. This is a bit beyond banning a flag, this is the systematic removal of anything remotely related to the civil war. And who knows, in 15 years, perhaps those who speak of the civil war will be laughed at and ridiculed for believing in such a wild crazy lie.





posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I'm not really sure about that.

The only thing separating a traitor from a revolutionary is who wins and that's it.

Should we let our view of history and the people in it be colored solely by which side writes the history books? Often, things are far more complex than that.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Definitely more complex... as an example, Australia started out as a British penal colony. Only a fool would refer to Australia as 'criminal,' however...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



It wasn't a rebuttal; it was a dismissal.


Yes, I understand. This a conversation however, not a formal debate, and while the 'rules of engagement' are much more relaxed, falling back on such a weak tactic as a 'dismissal' is an ironclad admission that you have firmly embraced the status of 'loser-hood'.

If you want to impugn my historical knowledge, you need to come up with a rebuttal - historical evidence that bears out your claim. Otherwise, your 'dismissal' is just the squeak of a loser.

Can you actually show evidence that slavery ended anywhere in the south before 1840 (which the census year in which New York was documented to have been slave free)? Please educate me, I love to learn new things.

Can you actually show evidence that shows that slavery spread from New England to the South, despite evidence showing slaves in Virginia (and Spanish Florida as well) before the Mayflower landed in New England. Again, please enlighten me.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You, and every other American citizen and member on this board, especially those who have never seen war, should really hope that you are sorely mistaken about this.


Because if you're correct, there will be no safety net; there will be no police to come to their rescue; there will only be blood and death like many have never seen.


I hope, with every fiber of my being that you couldn't be more incorrect.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

While I understand your point, and even agree with it, that agreement has its limits.

Benedict Arnold was honored in Britain, even though the winners know him as a traitor.
George Washington was reviled as a traitor in Britain even though the winners know him as a hero.

So it isn't just the winners that get to judge that status.

Certainly, the Rebellious Southern sympathizers considered Lee and Jackson to be heroes of the Confederacy and that is as it should be. However, they were rebels, and they lost. The rebel States, every one of them, had voluntarily joined the Union and every one of them repudiated that union.

They were traitors to the United States of America. That would not change had the rebels won. They would be heroes in the South and they would still be traitors in the Union.

Winning and losing doesn't change that - only what the consequences of that traitor/hero dichotomy are.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

I'd prefer that it not happen, either.

As for that "safety net"? If things get that bad, I wouldn't be in any frame of mind to trust anyone outside of a few select people. Some family, some friends, and myself, and that's about as far as it would extend, at least until others had proven trustworthy.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: rnaa




Both Lee and Jackson are traitors to the United States.


hey lets play a game... you show me a list of the confederate leaders convicted of treason...


Treason isn't a game, and for you to think so speaks volumes about your actual grasp of the subject.

That the rebel leaders weren't prosecuted for treason is an entirely different question to whether or not they were guilty of treason. And everyone at the time were well of that fact.

How US Civil War rebels got away with treason


Treason occurred as a topic in public discourse—pamphlets, newspapers, public gatherings, and the like—as often as commentary on the progress of the war and the concern for soldiers,...

Popular notions of treason, as opposed to court decisions, drove policymaking and caused members of the public sometimes to take matters into their own hands, such as storming a newspaper office or punishing an outspoken minister.


There were lots of civilian prosecutions for treason during the war, and the Union Government certainly had lists of rebel leaders who they thought needed to be tried for treason.

However...


Northerners took a pragmatic approach to the war’s end. They realized the impracticality of trying thousands of Southerners for disloyalty in states where juries were unlikely to deliver guilty verdicts, and that continued cries of treason would interfere with the more important task of nation-building.


Remember that the end result was that we are one nation that cannot be torn asunder. The North wanted to welcome the South back into the family so to speak. If your son steals your car, drives across state lines with his underage girlfriend, and robs a 7-11, do you cut him off forever, or do you try to reconcile with him and try to get him back on the right path? Do you still love him or do you get your neighbors to help you lynch him before the cops can catch him?

The point here is that even though the rebels, every man jack of them, not just the leaders, were guilty of treason, as defined in the Constitution and that crime is so serious that it is THE ONLY CRIME DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, those states still had to be rejoined into the Nation, not as occupied enemy territory, but as family.



Ironically, the lenient approach allowed Robert E. Lee and other Confederate leaders to become heroic figures to later generations of Americans of all sections, says Blair, citing words written by Union Gen. George Thomas in 1868: “The crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand-in-hand with the defenders of the (US) Government.”


General Thomas was extremely prescient: rebel leaders like Lee and Davis are not just remembered in history books, they continue to be worshiped as heroes. Well I don't fall into that trap. They are traitors and should be treated as object lessons not as heroes.

I understand fully why they were not prosecuted, and it wasn't because they weren't guilty, it was because family is family. You can forgive family for their transgressions, but you forget those transgressions at your peril.

edit on 4/7/2017 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join