Thanks for the link. Very informative.
(11-01-2017 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-ri...ert-e-lee/
Kelly is almost always right, but he sure is wading into some alligator infested territory these days-special counsel to investigate Clinton, General Lee.
Good article on Confederate statues.
It wasn't the Robert E. Lee comment that bothered people, that's more of a 'really, more defense of confederates?', it was the 'compromise' comment that bothered people. You know, because it's historically inaccurate, and implies that there should be a middle ground between wanting to own another human as property and not being ok with that. It's just tiresome hearing this administration continually wading into discussions it has no place in.
(11-01-2017 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-ri...ert-e-lee/
Kelly is almost always right, but he sure is wading into some alligator infested territory these days-special counsel to investigate Clinton, General Lee.
Good article on Confederate statues.
It wasn't the Robert E. Lee comment that bothered people, that's more of a 'really, more defense of confederates?', it was the 'compromise' comment that bothered people. You know, because it's historically inaccurate, and implies that there should be a middle ground between wanting to own another human as property and not being ok with that. It's just tiresome hearing this administration continually wading into discussions it has no place in.
Its not historically inaccurate at all. If you told the Army of the Potomac that it was a war to end slavery, 90% would have deserted.
The Northern armies fought to preserve the Union. The Southern armies fought to protect their states. The armies had mutual respect for each other. A lot of people 150 years later have no understanding.
(11-01-2017 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-ri...ert-e-lee/
Kelly is almost always right, but he sure is wading into some alligator infested territory these days-special counsel to investigate Clinton, General Lee.
Good article on Confederate statues.
It wasn't the Robert E. Lee comment that bothered people, that's more of a 'really, more defense of confederates?', it was the 'compromise' comment that bothered people. You know, because it's historically inaccurate, and implies that there should be a middle ground between wanting to own another human as property and not being ok with that. It's just tiresome hearing this administration continually wading into discussions it has no place in.
Its not historically inaccurate at all. If you told the Army of the Potomac that it was a war to end slavery, 90% would have deserted.
The Northern armies fought to preserve the Union. The Southern armies fought to protect their states. The armies had mutual respect for each other. A lot of people 150 years later have no understanding.
That’s incredibly revisionist. Yes the north fought to preserve the union, but there’s a reason the northern states didn’t join in the rebellion. Southern armies fought for states rights, rights for what? Slavery, plain and simple. Every single one of the states that seceded, mentioned the reason of slavery in their secession statements.
(11-01-2017 06:34 PM)jaredf29 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-ri...ert-e-lee/
Kelly is almost always right, but he sure is wading into some alligator infested territory these days-special counsel to investigate Clinton, General Lee.
Good article on Confederate statues.
It wasn't the Robert E. Lee comment that bothered people, that's more of a 'really, more defense of confederates?', it was the 'compromise' comment that bothered people. You know, because it's historically inaccurate, and implies that there should be a middle ground between wanting to own another human as property and not being ok with that. It's just tiresome hearing this administration continually wading into discussions it has no place in.
Its not historically inaccurate at all. If you told the Army of the Potomac that it was a war to end slavery, 90% would have deserted.
The Northern armies fought to preserve the Union. The Southern armies fought to protect their states. The armies had mutual respect for each other. A lot of people 150 years later have no understanding.
That’s incredibly revisionist. Yes the north fought to preserve the union, but there’s a reason the northern states didn’t join in the rebellion. Southern armies fought for states rights, rights for what? Slavery, plain and simple. Every single one of the states that seceded, mentioned the reason of slavery in their secession statements.
That's just flat out wrong.
"An Ordinance To dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of Government entitled the Constitution of the United States. We, the people of the State of North Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina, in the Convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also, all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly, ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated. We do further declare and ordain, that the Union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in the full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. W.H. Edwards Passed 20 day of May 1861 Testi. Walter L. Sluto, sec"
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using
CSNbbs mobile app
(11-01-2017 06:34 PM)jaredf29 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-ri...ert-e-lee/
Kelly is almost always right, but he sure is wading into some alligator infested territory these days-special counsel to investigate Clinton, General Lee.
Good article on Confederate statues.
It wasn't the Robert E. Lee comment that bothered people, that's more of a 'really, more defense of confederates?', it was the 'compromise' comment that bothered people. You know, because it's historically inaccurate, and implies that there should be a middle ground between wanting to own another human as property and not being ok with that. It's just tiresome hearing this administration continually wading into discussions it has no place in.
Its not historically inaccurate at all. If you told the Army of the Potomac that it was a war to end slavery, 90% would have deserted.
The Northern armies fought to preserve the Union. The Southern armies fought to protect their states. The armies had mutual respect for each other. A lot of people 150 years later have no understanding.
That’s incredibly revisionist. Yes the north fought to preserve the union, but there’s a reason the northern states didn’t join in the rebellion. Southern armies fought for states rights, rights for what? Slavery, plain and simple. Every single one of the states that seceded, mentioned the reason of slavery in their secession statements.
Nothing revisionist at all.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas didn't secede until Lincoln called for an army to invade the south. Kentucky didn't commit to the Union until a Confederate army occupied part of it.
People are attempting to interpret past events and judge dead people using modern criteria.
For example, by modern standards Lincoln was a raging racist. But, by the standards of the time he was socially advanced.
And now, if you judge and interpret in the context of the time of the actual events...you are evil. You must follow the politically correct narrative.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
And he was right about compromise. The country stayed together when we had statesmen like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. When they passed on we were left with Stephen Douglas whose Kansas-Nebraska Act undermined what Clay had done and lead directly to the war. "Bleeding Kansas." A lot of southerners wanted to expand slavery to all the territories. That was anathema to the north. The Dred Scott decision meant the North couldn't keep slavery out of their state. And the North refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Many abolitionists applauded John Y. Brown's terrorist acts, where he intended to arm the slaves to murder men, women and children as Nat Turner did.
Most leading southerners knew slavery was eventually going away. But they simply couldn't see affording the loss. There was an interesting article on James Madison who was opposed to slavery, but couldn't bring himself to free slaves. He asked Dolly to do it upon her death.
(11-01-2017 07:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]People are attempting to interpret past events and judge dead people using modern criteria.
For example, by modern standards Lincoln was a raging racist. But, by the standards of the time he was socially advanced.
And now, if you judge and interpret in the context of the time of the actual events...you are evil. You must follow the politically correct narrative.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
And Martin Luther King was a communist during the Cold War and cheated on his wife. He was far from perfect. So do we remove all his statues because of his failings?
It's really not just a matter of opinion whether or not slavery was the driving factor for secession, we have the words of the leaders of the confederacy and we have their constitution. They said it was about slavery, and their constitution is virtually the same as the United States constitution, except they explicitly protected slavery. How would that be the case if their main concern was a general encroachment on states rights? Hint, because it wasn't. They killed American soldiers in order to continue owning people. Thems the facts. It's not the only factor, and not everyone involved can be blamed for the secession itself, but it's time for us to accept what actually happened.
The fact we ever celebrated them to begin with is inexcusable. And yeah, my ancestors were poor whites who fought for the confederacy too, so go ahead and keep that card in the deck.
(11-01-2017 07:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]It's really not just a matter of opinion whether or not slavery was the driving factor for secession, we have the words of the leaders of the confederacy and we have their constitution. They said it was about slavery, and their constitution is virtually the same as the United States constitution, except they explicitly protected slavery. How would that be the case if their main concern was a general encroachment on states rights? Hint, because it wasn't. They killed American soldiers in order to continue owning people. Thems the facts. It's not the only factor, and not everyone involved can be blamed for the secession itself, but it's time for us to accept what actually happened.
The fact we ever celebrated them to begin with is inexcusable. And yeah, my ancestors were poor whites who fought for the confederacy too, so go ahead and keep that card in the deck.
Well the only ancestors of mine I'm aware of fought for the North. One died in the 7 days battles outside Richmond. The soldiers of the south did a remarkable job under trying circumstances and great odds. Its not the Confederate government that is celebrated. Its the people and the soldiers. You see the rebel battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy.
And while the South fired the first shots, it was because of an occupying army. The South didn't want war, just to be left alone. 4 states didn't even want to leave until force was used.
(11-01-2017 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 07:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]It's really not just a matter of opinion whether or not slavery was the driving factor for secession, we have the words of the leaders of the confederacy and we have their constitution. They said it was about slavery, and their constitution is virtually the same as the United States constitution, except they explicitly protected slavery. How would that be the case if their main concern was a general encroachment on states rights? Hint, because it wasn't. They killed American soldiers in order to continue owning people. Thems the facts. It's not the only factor, and not everyone involved can be blamed for the secession itself, but it's time for us to accept what actually happened.
The fact we ever celebrated them to begin with is inexcusable. And yeah, my ancestors were poor whites who fought for the confederacy too, so go ahead and keep that card in the deck.
Well the only ancestors of mine I'm aware of fought for the North. One died in the 7 days battles outside Richmond. The soldiers of the south did a remarkable job under trying circumstances and great odds. Its not the Confederate government that is celebrated. Its the people and the soldiers. You see the rebel battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy.
I see a flag used by those who killed American soldiers, because that's what it is.
(11-01-2017 08:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 07:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]It's really not just a matter of opinion whether or not slavery was the driving factor for secession, we have the words of the leaders of the confederacy and we have their constitution. They said it was about slavery, and their constitution is virtually the same as the United States constitution, except they explicitly protected slavery. How would that be the case if their main concern was a general encroachment on states rights? Hint, because it wasn't. They killed American soldiers in order to continue owning people. Thems the facts. It's not the only factor, and not everyone involved can be blamed for the secession itself, but it's time for us to accept what actually happened.
The fact we ever celebrated them to begin with is inexcusable. And yeah, my ancestors were poor whites who fought for the confederacy too, so go ahead and keep that card in the deck.
Well the only ancestors of mine I'm aware of fought for the North. One died in the 7 days battles outside Richmond. The soldiers of the south did a remarkable job under trying circumstances and great odds. Its not the Confederate government that is celebrated. Its the people and the soldiers. You see the rebel battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy.
I see a flag used by those who killed American soldiers, because that's what it is.
Sons of Union Veterans, the inheritor organization of the Grand Army of the Republic, see it in the context it is presented in. This seems more rational than your method.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
(11-01-2017 08:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 07:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]It's really not just a matter of opinion whether or not slavery was the driving factor for secession, we have the words of the leaders of the confederacy and we have their constitution. They said it was about slavery, and their constitution is virtually the same as the United States constitution, except they explicitly protected slavery. How would that be the case if their main concern was a general encroachment on states rights? Hint, because it wasn't. They killed American soldiers in order to continue owning people. Thems the facts. It's not the only factor, and not everyone involved can be blamed for the secession itself, but it's time for us to accept what actually happened.
The fact we ever celebrated them to begin with is inexcusable. And yeah, my ancestors were poor whites who fought for the confederacy too, so go ahead and keep that card in the deck.
Well the only ancestors of mine I'm aware of fought for the North. One died in the 7 days battles outside Richmond. The soldiers of the south did a remarkable job under trying circumstances and great odds. Its not the Confederate government that is celebrated. Its the people and the soldiers. You see the rebel battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy.
I see a flag used by those who killed American soldiers, because that's what it is.
And the Stars and Stripes were used by an army that killed Americans and torched American crops and burned American cities.
Oh, we're still fighting the Civil War, are we? Let's forget what ended on April 1865 and stop the one the Libturds are waging now. Muh..._______fill in the blank.
Just an observation, but UCF seems to be leading the way in SJW education.
(11-01-2017 09:13 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]Just an observation, but UCF seems to be leading the way in SJW education.
By virtue of his doctorate in ABCLGBT matters...and every other Libturd agenda.
(11-01-2017 06:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:34 PM)jaredf29 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:08 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2017 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-ri...ert-e-lee/
Kelly is almost always right, but he sure is wading into some alligator infested territory these days-special counsel to investigate Clinton, General Lee.
Good article on Confederate statues.
It wasn't the Robert E. Lee comment that bothered people, that's more of a 'really, more defense of confederates?', it was the 'compromise' comment that bothered people. You know, because it's historically inaccurate, and implies that there should be a middle ground between wanting to own another human as property and not being ok with that. It's just tiresome hearing this administration continually wading into discussions it has no place in.
Its not historically inaccurate at all. If you told the Army of the Potomac that it was a war to end slavery, 90% would have deserted.
The Northern armies fought to preserve the Union. The Southern armies fought to protect their states. The armies had mutual respect for each other. A lot of people 150 years later have no understanding.
That’s incredibly revisionist. Yes the north fought to preserve the union, but there’s a reason the northern states didn’t join in the rebellion. Southern armies fought for states rights, rights for what? Slavery, plain and simple. Every single one of the states that seceded, mentioned the reason of slavery in their secession statements.
That's just flat out wrong.
"An Ordinance To dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of Government entitled the Constitution of the United States. We, the people of the State of North Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina, in the Convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also, all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly, ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated. We do further declare and ordain, that the Union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in the full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. W.H. Edwards Passed 20 day of May 1861 Testi. Walter L. Sluto, sec"
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app
So not all of them, I stand corrected. However, most of them for sure.