Civil War monument topic

[johnnylightnin]

"actively courted their vote"? How so?

No doubt Trump unified the blue collar working class and conservatives. That's all it took to get him elected vs. Clinton. The left and the RINOs have been against ANYTHING he does from day one. I for one and SICK of the GOP leaders giving more and more to left leanings. We go across the isle, they move farther left. It's amazing that Trump standing firm on certain issues is being seen as divisive. This is the first time conservatives have had a voice in 40 years.

Bannon.

As for the rest of your post, that seems to be a "no" to my question. You're okay with Trump being divisive as long as it's something you believe should divide us. That's fine, but I don't think critiquing the left for their divisiveness is going to get you very far.

Trump is the "equal and opposite" reaction to leftist elitism and divisiveness...I get that, but the right can't criticize the left's tactics when they respond with the same tactics.

As for Trump as a voice for conservatives, we'll agree to disagree. The wall is not conservative. Fighting free trade is not conservative. The individual mandate and pre-ex clause is not conservative. Big government authoritarianism is not conservative.

[PawDawg]

I'd probably start with the fact that the Confederates were not fighting for the USA. .

They were not "fighting for the confederates" either. They were fighting for their individual state and those state's individual rights in the Republic. See why Robert E Lee decided to fight against the country he loved.

The fighting for slavery mantra is weak.

[johnnylightnin]

If some of you guys think Trump actively recruited Nazi, white supremacist then I think this happened.

For clarity, I'm not saying Trump recruited Nazi's or white supremacists to do what happened in Charlottesville. I believe him when he says their racism and bigotry is deplorable. However, I DO think that the hire of Bannon allowed him to reach the more unsavory elements of the far right in a way that, plausibly, emboldened the folks who perpetrated the racist actions of late.

This is not unique to the right. All politicians court votes of folks they don't necessarily embrace, like, trust, etc.

[johnnylightnin]

They were not "fighting for the confederates" either. They were fighting for their individual state and those state's individual rights in the Republic. See why Robert E Lee decided to fight against the country he loved.

The fighting for slavery mantra is weak.

They weren't fighting for the Confederate States and against the United States?

[Guisslapp]

They were not "fighting for the confederates" either. They were fighting for their individual state and those state's individual rights in the Republic. See why Robert E Lee decided to fight against the country he loved.

The fighting for slavery mantra is weak.

Remember when:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery or subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science...."

Alexander H. Stephens,
Vice President of the Confederacy
"Cornerstone Speech"
March 2, 1861
Savannah, GA

You can also look at the declarations of secession by each state and most mention slavery.

[PawDawg]

They weren't fighting for the Confederate States and against the United States?

Every discussion continues to be over simplified by saying, "those who were fighting for slavery". The soldiers were loyal to their individual states. Again, what Lee said and did is a prime example of how things were viewed by those who fought for the south.

[PawDawg]

Remember when:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery or subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science...."

Alexander H. Stephens,
Vice President of the Confederacy
"Cornerstone Speech"
March 2, 1861
Savannah, GA

You can also look at the declarations of secession by each state and most mention slavery.

You can also find like examples from those who fought "against slavery" in the north including Abraham Lincoln. This line of thinking was not unique to those from the South. I think you know that, but keep using the leftist mantra to make your points.

[Guisslapp]

You can also find like examples from those who fought "against slavery" in the north including Abraham Lincoln. This line of thinking was not unique to those from the South. I think you know that, but keep using the leftist mantra to make your points.

The North DIDN'T fight against slavery. You are improperly conflating the issues.

[saltydawg]

No, you missed the point. I'm not a slippery slope kind of guy. When you ask someone about the removal of statues and listen to the reasoning behind it, it is very short sighted. I am pointing out that the reasoning most often provides no distinction between the civil war statues and memorials to any of those men I listed. People need to think a little deeper before drawing conclusions on topics like this.

So in your mind, why should civil war statues be removed and not monuments to the men I listed?

Salty, I'd like to read your answer to that question also.

Confederate statues celebrate the Confederacy and its values whereas monuments to the Presidents listed honor their contributions to society.

[PawDawg]

The North DIDN'T fight against slavery. You are improperly conflating the issues.

Yes I know. That's why I put noted "against slavery" which is as ridiculous as saying the south fought "for slavery".

[johnnylightnin]

Every discussion continues to be over simplified by saying, "those who were fighting for slavery". The soldiers were loyal to their individual states. Again, what Lee said and did is a prime example of how things were viewed by those who fought for the south.

I didn't say that. I said these were statues of men who were fighting against the United States...which is true. That differentiates them from the statues of the men that RD referenced. I'm making no statement about the rightness or wrongness of what they did...I'm saying only that they are different than the ones that RD mentioned.

I'm not assuming to speak for whatever tribe you're against, I'm only speaking for myself.

[Guisslapp]

Yes I know. That's why I put noted "against slavery" which is as ridiculous as saying the south fought "for slavery".

No, the North fought against secession. The South seceded because of slavery.

[PawDawg]

The South seceded because of slavery.

Nope that was not the primary reason and certainly not the only reason. Keep saying it though. Our youth have been being indoctrinated with that misinformation for almost 50 years.

[dawg80]

When I was a kid I loved going on vacation trips to Tennessee. We would go to the Smokies, Gatlinburg, of course, but we also spent time in Chattanooga: Lookout Mountain, the Incline Railroad, and the Confederama. My brother and I would get Civil War soldiers, and "stuff" and my dad would tell us the history of the battles fought there. To us, it was no different than going to Disneyland, and Robert E. Lee was an icon, much like Mickey Mouse! Those are the cherished memories I hold from my childhood and spending time with my dad (now deceased many years).

Then later, because of the indoctrination of school and not liking what I had been told about the Southern Confederacy, I got interested in the strictly military side of the war. Shying away from the politics, the reasons for the war, etc.. I focused on the battles, the tactics, the strategy and, also, the individual heroes. But, a funny thing happened on that journey. I kept running across information that was contrary to what I had been taught in school about the politics of the war. This eventually evolved into a full-fledged research project, some of it meant for publication, but mostly for my own information. I discovered another "truth" about the era, about the Southern Confederacy and of the North's real motivations and goals. It was a real eye-opener.

BTW, I know it's kind of sentimental, but I still have a few toy soldiers, Confederates! that my dad bought for me back in 1965 when we were in Chattanooga. It reminds me of time spent with him...

[Guisslapp]

Nope that was not the primary reason and certainly not the only reason. Keep saying it though. Our youth have been being indoctrinated with that misinformation for almost 50 years.

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras277...secession.html

So these states lied in their articles and declarations of causes of secession? The VP of the Confederacy was mistaken as to the cornerstone beliefs of the confederacy?