University of North Carolina Students Topple Confederate Monument

originally posted by: strongfp
So you're ok honoring a genocidal war monger?

Totally, war is fought to be won, he won, therefore: trophy.

I love this thread.

Again, I do not approve of what they did. Of course not.
Far more interested in the replies.

The very same people that talk # about the left and how they call for violence are the same people claiming violence would be ok towards these people.

Some of you are just gross. Just like the head dick you all love so much.

But they are erasing history. We only have 1700 confederate statues left.
Funny cause these same people that are bitching cause their precious statues are being taken down are and were totally cool with libraries and museums closing cause lack of funding.

Their retort? Who needs to see a klimt in person? We have Google.

Well who needs to see silent Sam in town? You have Google. Google it up.

It's hilarious and gross all at the same time. Full of double standards and hypocrisy and flat out dick baggery.

Muh statue.
Muh heritage.

I will commit violence and die for my statue...

That's gross

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

It's OK, so long as they agree with the purpose of the vandalism.

I mean, racism is now gone on the campus, isn't it?? Magically gone. Or is it?

a reply to: Gothmog

Were they traitors, or were they betrayed by a federal govt. An argument can be made for both.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Irishhaf
wouldn't bother me a bit, since his actions definitely played a huge part in the development of the city.

Yeah, he definitely cleared a lot of downtown land for future redevelopment.

By the way I got a good chuckle out of that

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Bitter South?

Some, only some, were. Would you not be ever so slightly bitter if your home was burned, crops destroyed, to "punish" the south?

Sherman's March to the Sea. Read some of the accounts by southerners. There's a reason he's reviled as much as he is, even over a century and a half later.

a reply to: neo96

Many of those Union soldiers were farm boys, too. From places like Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Kentucky. Others were city boys from Boston, or New York. They were in no wise professional soldiers.

Don't try to make the comparison, it doesn't work well.

a reply to: neo96

But ... but ... I thought it wasn’t about slavery and they were going to give them up anyway?!?!


Jesus Christ you can’t even keep your story straight, lol

a reply to: ignorant_ape

What is that monument even supposed to be??

a reply to: seagull

The North had the numbers, and industry.

The south didn't.

IT is simply as that.

a reply to: seagull

Oh no.. everyone in the south was crazy bitter.. look at the loss of blood and treasure...


Just the slaves alone were worth more than every other material possession north and south INCLUDING LIVESTOCK , but without the land..

People don’t set that much wealth free without a fight and without being bitter about it, Period.

a reply to: seagull

HOW WHEN THE LEFT THE UNION AND FIRED FIRST BEFIRE THE REPUBLICANS WERE EVER EVEN SWORN IN?????


That is literally an impossiblity.. the slave states had a legislative majority in EVERY branch of government AND the Supreme Court UNTIL Lincoln’s election..

Then they left before he took office..


There was no real complaint before Lincoln’s election and the left the union before he was inaugurated.

a reply to: Freeborn

I also thought your abundance of guns and hallowed Constitution would stop such things?

They tried. Foolishly, they tried a military campaign that played right into the hands of the industrial north. Ultimately, fighting that way is what doomed the South.

It's fair to say that had the south followed a strategy of "hittin' 'em where they ain't.", the outcome might, only might, have been different.

I always thought the biggest difference was that the Southern States resented the central, federal government imposing laws upon them and felt their 'way of life' was threatened by their northern neighbours.
Initially slavery was just one aspect of this.
Obviously it became the single, biggest issue.

To a degree that was true. Slavery was an issue, of that there is no doubt, but it wasn't the overarching issue by any stretch of the imagination. Though later "history" would make it so. It was always States rights vs the power of the federal govt. Whatever those states felt those rights to be--be it chattel slavery, or the price of cotton. My ancestors, from Kentucky fought for the South, others from Illinois fought for the North. I was told, by my Grand-father that some of the reunions when he was a boy got--interesting. Still other ancestors were Quakers who ran a stop on the Underground Railroad across the Mason-Dixon line.

No, there were a myriad of issues involved in the run up to, and during, the Civil War. Most of 'em intertwined with each other to a degree that many of us, today, have trouble understanding. ...and, as you can see from this thread, many of those issues are still with us today.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

God bless the Queen then, right?

When is it not treason? But justified rebellion? Point out the line to me??

a reply to: JoshuaCox


To take a page out of the lefts playbook...

I would say the people that met Sherman during his march to the sea had a right to be bitter... since he burned everything to the ground, whether it was used to help the war effort or just a house to shelter in.

Even though the war was essentially over shortly after he started his march East.

a reply to: Gothmog

Robert E Lee, Jeff Davis and everyother memer of the confederacy who went to West Point swore an oath of loyalty to the USA.

They broke that oath and took up arms against the USA.

That is literally the definition of treason.



And that is letting those like Forrest who didn’t go to West Point seperate..

Basically everyone besides Forrest who has s statue even swore an oath to The US BEFORE THEY COMMITTED TREASON.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Really?

That's not the impression I'm getting from some... From some, not all, it seems so long as they agree with the stated "reason", it's OK.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

More than once.

Every single person involved staff and students should be expelled as well as charges by police for vandalism.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
. I think anyone who attacks a statue on public property should be eligible for capital punishment.

Dude........

Look I love history and think destruction of historical monuments is disgusting....... but execution?

Capital punishment should be reserved for murder and paedophiles ONLY.

For destroying a statue make them and any institution behind them liable for damages plus 2x the statues cost.
If they continue throw there areas in prison for 5 years.


I don't get this American love for killing everything......