Robert E Lee Statue

[Bez]

I read yesterday that the Texas Ranger statue in Dallas is being or has been removed also.

We are witnessing Nazi German of the 1930's happening here today.
There is not a Jew that wants Auschwitz torn down. You're doomed to repeat history when you try to erase history.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.
George Orwell, 1984"

Wise words. Erase history and you will end up repeating it.

Best to all

Bez

 

[greggy]

Question here did Robert E. Lee start the Lee Jeans that have become a national brand.

Yes.

Ban them as well, and burn at stake or public amusement stoning for anyone related or stupid enough to have that name, inluding as a first name......

World + corona = lot of extra madness surfacing.

 

[TexasBred]

So many people have no idea of who Lee was, the times in which he lived, what he believed in, and the kind of man he was.
You can try to explain to them that he was against slavery and never wanted that war. You can't get them to understand that Lee did not fight for slavery. He fought for his state of Virginia. But they do not hear and keep on believing untrue propaganda.

How do you educate or reason with a closed mind ?

If Lee was against slavery why did he keep the slaves his wife inherited from her dad as long as he legally could (several years)before he finally released them. Had to make one final crops so he could pay off his debts. He was a traitor and Lincoln gave him his life

 

[Caustic Burno]

Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.

"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."

Look up his plan for them.

The only reason Lincoln freed the slave was to create a hardship for the south.
He did not have altruistic motivation.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.

"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."

Look up his plan for them.

I've always heard rumors of a "back to Africa" plan but never seen documentation

 

[Caustic Burno]

Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.

"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."

Look up his plan for them.

I've always heard rumors of a "back to Africa" plan but never seen documentation

If I remember my history correctly it was Central America

 

[Caustic Burno]

Here's what I dug up right quick.
Haven't read it all.

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Here's what I dug up right quick.
Haven't read it all.

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Interesting

 

[JWBrahman]

I see this a different way. We destroyed a lot of valuable art in Louisiana and never bothered to replace it with anything equally nice.

You know who destroys art?
The Taliban

Now the same people who want to destroy controversial art are the people who were defending the National Endowment For The Arts for spending millions on ridiculous turd paintings of the Virgin Mary.

I don't see the whole baggage of history. I see a nice sculpture that is technically a masterpiece. We've got to quit destroying our public treasures.

 

[Buck Randall]

Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.

"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."

Look up his plan for them.

The only reason Lincoln freed the slave was to create a hardship for the south.
He did not have altruistic motivation.

To say that Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves isn't really true, just as it's untrue to paint him as a flawless liberator fighting for racial justice. He opposed slavery, but didn't believe abolition was possible without upending the political system and stability of the country. The secession of the South forced his hand.

His views on race evolved over the course of his presidency, and he had a notable friendship with Frederick Douglass, who argued for equality of all races. That friendship and the performance of free blacks in the army did eventually convince Lincoln that black people could be worthy of US citizenship and voting rights.

Like most people, he was neither all good nor all bad, but his ability to lead while learning and keeping an open mind is a rare one.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.

"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."

Look up his plan for them.

The only reason Lincoln freed the slave was to create a hardship for the south.
He did not have altruistic motivation.

To say that Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves isn't really true, just as it's untrue to paint him as a flawless liberator fighting for racial justice. He opposed slavery, but didn't believe abolition was possible without upending the political system and stability of the country. The secession of the South forced his hand.

His views on race evolved over the course of his presidency, and he had a notable friendship with Frederick Douglass, who argued for equality of all races. That friendship and the performance of free blacks in the army did eventually convince Lincoln that black people could be worthy of US citizenship and voting rights.

Like most people, he was neither all good nor all bad, but his ability to lead while learning and keeping an open mind is a rare one.

We'll agree his views changed but the emancipation proclamation was about placing a hardship on the South' War efforts, not any other altruistic motive.
Only Clinton won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he did carry a majority of the states unlike Lincoln.

 

[Buck Randall]

Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.

"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."

Look up his plan for them.

The only reason Lincoln freed the slave was to create a hardship for the south.
He did not have altruistic motivation.

To say that Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves isn't really true, just as it's untrue to paint him as a flawless liberator fighting for racial justice. He opposed slavery, but didn't believe abolition was possible without upending the political system and stability of the country. The secession of the South forced his hand.

His views on race evolved over the course of his presidency, and he had a notable friendship with Frederick Douglass, who argued for equality of all races. That friendship and the performance of free blacks in the army did eventually convince Lincoln that black people could be worthy of US citizenship and voting rights.

Like most people, he was neither all good nor all bad, but his ability to lead while learning and keeping an open mind is a rare one.

We'll agree his views changed but the emancipation proclamation was about placing a hardship on the South' War efforts, not any other altruistic motive.
Only Clinton won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he did carry a majority of the states unlike Lincoln.

I agree absolutely on that count. Freeing the slaves and arming them was a strategic necessity for the Union effort. If not for the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln almost certainly loses reelection and you and I are posting from different countries.

 

[Buck Randall]

I see this a different way. We destroyed a lot of valuable art in Louisiana and never bothered to replace it with anything equally nice.

You know who destroys art?
The Taliban

Now the same people who want to destroy controversial art are the people who were defending the National Endowment For The Arts for spending millions on ridiculous turd paintings of the Virgin Mary.

I don't see the whole baggage of history. I see a nice sculpture that is technically a masterpiece. We've got to quit destroying our public treasures.

One man's art is another's symbol of oppression. I didn't hear a lot of complaining when US marines pulled down the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. I suppose someone may have been offended, but losers don't get statues. Life goes on.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

If you guys ever put up an Obama monument I'll be thrilled to pull it down.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I see this a different way. We destroyed a lot of valuable art in Louisiana and never bothered to replace it with anything equally nice.

You know who destroys art?
The Taliban

Now the same people who want to destroy controversial art are the people who were defending the National Endowment For The Arts for spending millions on ridiculous turd paintings of the Virgin Mary.

I don't see the whole baggage of history. I see a nice sculpture that is technically a masterpiece. We've got to quit destroying our public treasures.

One man's art is another's symbol of oppression. I didn't hear a lot of complaining when US marines pulled down the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. I suppose someone may have been offended, but losers don't get statues. Life goes on.

I can see how America got to the last Civil War we are almost there today.
It was literally brother against brother.
I had family that fought on both sides as I imagined most Americans ancestors did. To the common man the fight was over ideology the political figures about power of the electoral to control the presidency. Most of the soldiers fighting were conscripted.
IMO I really don't think there was a hatred among the generals of either side, most had been classmates at the academy. Again I believe that most had a respect of each other and their beliefs and abilities. Had Lincoln not been assassinated I believe the country would have more rapidly healed.
I believe reconstruction left a deeper wound than the war.

 

[Buck Randall]

I see this a different way. We destroyed a lot of valuable art in Louisiana and never bothered to replace it with anything equally nice.

You know who destroys art?
The Taliban

Now the same people who want to destroy controversial art are the people who were defending the National Endowment For The Arts for spending millions on ridiculous turd paintings of the Virgin Mary.

I don't see the whole baggage of history. I see a nice sculpture that is technically a masterpiece. We've got to quit destroying our public treasures.

One man's art is another's symbol of oppression. I didn't hear a lot of complaining when US marines pulled down the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. I suppose someone may have been offended, but losers don't get statues. Life goes on.

I can see how America got to the last Civil War we are almost there today.
It was literally brother against brother.
I had family that fought on both sides as I imagined most Americans ancestors did. To the common man the fight was over ideology the political figures about power of the electoral to control the presidency. Most of the soldiers fighting were conscripted.
IMO I really don't think there was a hatred among the generals of either side, most had been classmates at the academy. Again I believe that most had a respect of each other and their beliefs and abilities. Had Lincoln not been assassinated I believe the country would have more rapidly healed.
I believe reconstruction left a deeper wound than the war.

Grant and Lincoln both believed in trampling the Southern cause without trampling the people, and in my opinion, were on the right track. Those that followed over the next 100 years messed it up horribly.

CB, I truly can't understand how a patriotic American could believe in erecting statues to honor the men who fought to destroy the union, or wave a flag that stands for that cause. It's possible to acknowledge their military ability and their fighting spirit while also recognizing that their cause was rooted in our country's deepest evil, one which we should not celebrate.

But heck, I'm just a yankee.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Correction, damm yankee.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I can as you have to look as many believed that the state trumped the federal by the constitution. The power of a central government was a fear of the framers. This is the fathers and grandfathers of the Civil War vet.
If you read the constitution as it's written the federal government didn't have much power it's granted to the states. You have to understand your history here.

https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/federalist-papers

 

[Buck Randall]

Correction, damm yankee.

I'd have said that, but figured it would just get be niced.

 

[Buck Randall]

I can as you have to look as many believed that the state trumped the federal by the constitution. The power of a central government was a fear of the framers. This is the fathers and grandfathers of the Civil War vet.
If you read the constitution as it's written the federal government didn't have much power it's granted to the states. You have to understand your history here.

https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/federalist-papers

Yes, I suppose it makes sense if you subscribe to the idea that secession was a matter of "states rights". However, the supposed right in question was the ability to legalize slavery, a concept antithetical to the premise on which this country was founded as laid out in the declaration of independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights endowed by God, and government exists to ensure those rights are maintained.