Robert E Lee Statue

[Buck Randall]

Wow, Cattle Today censors the declaration of independence. Who runs this commie site? :lol2:

 

[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

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 be nice, and government exists to ensure those rights are maintained.

Slavery wasn't as much an issue as power and authority in picking the president. This all goes back to the Missouri Compromise and the ruling elite. If slavery had been the driving issued the Democrats wouldn't have fractured into three camps. Each camp running a candidate against Lincoln.
This was about power. "The main point of confrontation between the parties was the expansion into the west and the accompanying question about slavery. The States rights principals of the south made the South very hard to govern effectively, as proved by the Civil war, the Southern government was far more ineffective in prosecuting the war than their Northern counterparts. "

 

[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.

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.

Buck there is a statue of Nick Saban on the University of Alabama that I find oppressive and hurts my feelings.

On the LSU campus we have a statue of Shaq, a guy who aggravates and antagonizes many people.

Art is supposed to inspire the brain to start working. Sometimes it makes our brains happy. Sometimes it makes our brain upset. It doesn't matter just as long as it makes you think. The statue of the marines at Iwo Jima probably isn't a big favorite with the Japanese. Should we year down that dedication to sacrifice and teamwork?

It's a slippery slope when we decide to destroy art instead of understanding art.

 

[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.

Buck there is a statue of Nick Saban on the University of Alabama that I find oppressive and hurts my feelings.

On the LSU campus we have a statue of Shaq, a guy who aggravates and antagonizes many people.

Art is supposed to inspire the brain to start working. Sometimes it makes our brains happy. Sometimes it makes our brain upset. It doesn't matter just as long as it makes you think. The statue of the marines at Iwo Jima probably isn't a big favorite with the Japanese. Should we year down that dedication to sacrifice and teamwork?

It's a slippery slope when we decide to destroy art instead of understanding art.

Art is not sacred. If a person spray paints a landscape on the side of your house, you're not going to preserve it because destroying art is a slippery slope.

If someone wants to build a museum with placards for the statues explaining their true purpose (they were constructed as monuments to racist pride in the 60s) I've got no problem with them continuing to exist as pieces of art. They have no place in town squares or government buildings.

They have underlying historic and artistic value, but they were built to send a message. Tearing them down sends a message, too.

 

[JWBrahman]

Sending a message and actually doing something to relieve the economic shackles on working Americans are two different things.

We don't need empty gestures. We need a fair economy that rewards hard work, ethics, honesty, and ingenuity. The statues are long gone from New Orleans and life in the city has never been worse for black, white, brown, yellow, rich, poor, or in between.

 

[Caustic Burno]

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.

Buck there is a statue of Nick Saban on the University of Alabama that I find oppressive and hurts my feelings.

On the LSU campus we have a statue of Shaq, a guy who aggravates and antagonizes many people.

Art is supposed to inspire the brain to start working. Sometimes it makes our brains happy. Sometimes it makes our brain upset. It doesn't matter just as long as it makes you think. The statue of the marines at Iwo Jima probably isn't a big favorite with the Japanese. Should we year down that dedication to sacrifice and teamwork?

It's a slippery slope when we decide to destroy art instead of understanding art.

Art is not sacred. If a person spray paints a landscape on the side of your house, you're not going to preserve it because destroying art is a slippery slope.

If someone wants to build a museum with placards for the statues explaining their true purpose (they were constructed as monuments to racist pride in the 60s) I've got no problem with them continuing to exist as pieces of art. They have no place in town squares or government buildings.

They have underlying historic and artistic value, but they were built to send a message. Tearing them down sends a message, too.

You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.

See a trend here?

 

[TexasBred]

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.

CB can't help but notice you're used the above comment a number of times even though it is basically meaningless since Lincoln had a huge majority of electoral votes. Hope you noticed he carried all but three states in his 2nd term and 55% of the popular vote.. Carry on

 

[TexasBred]

The statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross was vandalized on the Texas A&M campus this week probably because he was a general in the confederate army at one time. The statue depicts him as a businessman/educator as he went on to serve two terms as governor of the state as well as president of Texas A&M University and has nothing to do with his serving in the confederate army. His programs helped revitalize a struggling university that was on the verge of shutting down at the time.

 

[sstterry]

You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.

See a trend here?

I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.

 

[ccr]

You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.

See a trend here?

I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.

And Johnson enhanced and it ended under Nixon.

https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation

 

[sstterry]

You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.

See a trend here?

I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.

And Johnson enhanced and it ended under Nixon.

https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation

I don't disagree with that at all. Just saying it started under Eisenhower. I do not have the energy or time to get into the whole history of it, but the present-day Iran problems started with the CIA under Eisenhower too. That is also what led to Vietnam. Not being political, just a fact of what actually happened.

 

[Caustic Burno]

You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.

See a trend here?

I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.

Your right Kennedy took the advisors from 700 to 12k.

Johnson really kicked it off to help out his buddy George R Brown.
1965: 'Operation Rolling Thunder' started; first US combat troops were sent to Vietnam in March; by the end of the year there were 200,000 US troops there; first major conventional clash between USA and NVA at Ia Drang



1966: 400,000 US troops were in Vietnam



1967: 490,000 US troops in Vietnam; Nguyen Van Thieu became President of South Vietnam

 

[Caustic Burno]

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.

CB can't help but notice you're used the above comment a number of times even though it is basically meaningless since Lincoln had a huge majority of electoral votes. Hope you noticed he carried all but three states in his 2nd term and 55% of the popular vote.. Carry on

TB you are correct on his second term !
There were 13 less states in that election. He didn't carry a majority of the states in his first term .

 

[greggy]

Tearing down any statue does not change history

Re Japs and statue, well I bet they have plenty of respect and discipline, to not just remove what may not be liked.

People defacing war memorials too, I do not like the idea of war, but I repect those that serve, especially my country men and those on our side, but all so the honorable from the other side, a thinking person can see it was a difficult thing for many. Also a realist knows there will always be war, or winners and losers....

Heck, lets be real, life is a struggle probably for most, it has to be that way, unless your the kind that thinks everyone should get a prize just for breathing, getting out of bed, etc, etc

At the end, I see no national vote where a majority get to say yay, or, nay, till then, your just a vandal if defacing etc in a country with civil laws.

 

[jltrent]

Columbus's head got chopped off. I recon he was a raciest too for discovering American. Statue companies are going to need a bail out.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/christopher-columbus-statue-beheaded-boston-massachusetts/

 

[greggy]

That is just ridiculous.

An act of a lawless mob.

 

[haase]

No,greggy, it just shows were ignorance kicks in, I'm from the north and lived a good part of my life in Texas, and I'm glad I did, I really don't think anyone on here can say they fought in the war between the north and south, heck any budy on here never fought in ww2, but nowadays we have people that want to change history, why because they have nothing else to do, they have no couse other than political, but in the end it means nothing, but it's just another string they have to hold onto.

 

[farmerjan]

In the article about the Christopher Columbus statue in Boston, the one member of the tribe talks about how it is offensive due to the whole thing of Columbus coming and how it started the enslavement and destruction of the native tribes..... what about every tribe that preyed on/fought/ stole and killed ..... they are reprehensible to the tribe they attacked. And being of native american descent in a small fraction, of the Mohawk tribe..... one of the most warlike of the eastern Iroquois nation, I just get tired of it. So GET OVER IT. There are very very few that can say that someone in their ancestry did not fight or enslave, or kill another person or persons . It offends me what was done to the Native Americans in this country because it was disgraceful..... I cannot change it, I can only try to foster a better life for some of them and hope that there is some way in the future that they can make their own lives better too.

 

[greggy]

Yes, but your a rational, sane and seemingly decent individual.

We all should know history, and that includes the downright abhorrent from recent past, not just the nice parts, we should be reminded of it, but always strive for better for those we produce and those around us who are decent people too.

These days it is bugger everyone, do not touch my child even though they are a druggie thief or murderer, keep everything I do not like from view or destroy it, that way I can create an environment so history can repeat.

The brutal truth is, people have no sense of what war is like and we have gone without for a while on a broad scale, or total lawlessness & they have no tolerance for mistakes in a system that is as good as your likely to get, they seem to push for an anarchist state & where everything is controlled, well, they better hope they do not get what they wish for, those under certain past and present despots or dictators would prob be the only ones with eyes open enough to know how good out not perfect systems are for those who want a quite & decent life with liberal freedoms.

There are many cancers eating at our Western ways.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Columbus's head got chopped off. I recon he was a raciest too for discovering American. Statue companies are going to need a bail out.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/christopher-columbus-statue-beheaded-boston-massachusetts/

We have reached arm insurrection and occupation in a major city. This is the start of Civil War.
Fort Sumter started off much the same way. It's time to put it down now and hard IMO. Order them to disband and disarm or leave dead in the streets.
This is not second amendment but a terrorist action.