Another example where special interest groups taking advantage of politicians and "management" that have no spine in the matter. One would think those elected would at least try to get the pulse of their constituents.

However they do not. They are too concerned with a possible law suit or worse election loss of a voting block.

Like it or not our heritage is our heritage. And to represent that any of the statues were symbols of racism is a modern day slant slathered over a yester year historical symbol.

The removal is just another step in the decaying core issues in our beloved country. And as the current majority is eventually out birthed becoming the minority, in another generation this country will not be recognized as what it currently is or once was.

Of course all of these actions are facilitated by the lazy, laid back, not in my back yard, do nothing silent majority (for now).

Actually a disturbing shame of what the special interest and minority groups have been allowed to accomplish.

What does it take to inspire sufficient anger in the American majority?

Obama keeps on giving.

Coming soon to a street corner near YOU!!!!!!!

The movement of the Left today is just like the Confederate movement that started the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Guest

Another example where special interest groups taking advantage of politicians and "management" that have no spine in the matter. One would think those elected would at least try to get the pulse of their constituents.

However they do not. They are too concerned with a possible law suit or worse election loss of a voting block.

Like it or not our heritage is our heritage. And to represent that any of the statues were symbols of racism is a modern day slant slathered over a yester year historical symbol.

The removal is just another step in the decaying core issues in our beloved country. And as the current majority is eventually out birthed becoming the minority, in another generation this country will not be recognized as what it currently is or once was.

Of course all of these actions are facilitated by the lazy, laid back, not in my back yard, do nothing silent majority (for now).

Actually a disturbing shame of what the special interest and minority groups have been allowed to accomplish.

What does it take to inspire sufficient anger in the American majority?

As they grow in numbers...as they become the majority...they will get THEIR way...it will become their history that is taught, not ours. If there IS much teaching after they take over. There is not ONE successful country that was once white and is now brown/black...not one. America is at 50:50 right now...which way it goes determines which way we go...Habla Espanol? or English?

What WILL it take for us to say no more...we're taking OUR country back?

Originally Posted by Guest

Another example where special interest groups taking advantage of politicians and "management" that have no spine in the matter. One would think those elected would at least try to get the pulse of their constituents.

However they do not. They are too concerned with a possible law suit or worse election loss of a voting block.

Like it or not our heritage is our heritage. And to represent that any of the statues were symbols of racism is a modern day slant slathered over a yester year historical symbol.

The removal is just another step in the decaying core issues in our beloved country. And as the current majority is eventually out birthed becoming the minority, in another generation this country will not be recognized as what it currently is or once was.

Of course all of these actions are facilitated by the lazy, laid back, not in my back yard, do nothing silent majority (for now).

Actually a disturbing shame of what the special interest and minority groups have been allowed to accomplish.

What does it take to inspire sufficient anger in the American majority?

The last one to be removed is Robert E. Lee.

My family was not here during the civil war and in any case when they arrived they settled in the north. Robert E. Lee was in fact an honorable gentleman. Robert E. Lee is a NATIONAL HERO. Were it not for Lee and his chivalry the south would have fought a guerrilla war and it would have lasted till??????

Lee is looking for a place to stand-THE VILLAGES?

The statues of leaders of the South are not national heroes. They supported and lead a war to be allowed to continue to enslave a race of people that considered to be property and subhuman. It is only 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled that those states must not put into jail any married couple of a black person (1/16 black blood) and a white person. The war was not about states rights, it was only about the states right to have slaves. Period. Every comment by every contemporary Southern politician knew it. The CSA which was formed by the traitors had a constitution. Did it have anything in it about "states rights" if you think that was so important to them. Read it.

The CSA almost word for word copied the US Constitution but it did make some changes.

The US has The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

The CSA has
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired

See the difference? No state in the CSA, that bastion of states rights, has the right to prohibit slavery or even the transportation of slaves through its territory. Now if this was all about states rights, why did the CSA say the state can do what it wants except to prohibit slavery?

Or how about this addition

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states

See that, we in the CSA welcome any new territory as long as it also protects the institution of slavery.

So stop with this revisionist history of the war being about rights. It was about one "right". The "right" to own slaves

See the statement of the first state to leave the Union, South Carolina
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Take your time and read it. It states that South Carolina, like the other slaveholding states, felt that because Lincoln had won the election {On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. } it was now time to get out because the Union seemed to want to abolish slavery. It is all about slavery. Only slavery.

Go ahead, read the secession statements of the other states, same story. We are leaving because we need to protect our institution of slavery.

So now, tell me again about the nobility of those who lead this war. You may think Lee is an American hero. I do not. Nor are any of the others who supported this rebellion because they believed they needed to defend slavery.

And statues were erected not right after the war to honor their dead, no those statues were erected once the Jim Crow laws were enacted and the KKK was in its fullest glory. They were erected by a culture that did not find it necessary to honor any person who opposed slavery, no statues of Lincoln, no statues of Sojourner Truth, no tributes to H B Stowe.

These statues, and the flag we too often still see including the one on Betty Exum's house, honor the institution of slavery and those who would rather die than give up that right to own property. Nikki Haley finally understood. Maybe you can too if you read the record the south left of its own justification for war.

You don't see Germany erecting statues to its WW 2 generals saying wonderful things about the honorable causes those generals believed in. You don't see sane Germans flying Nazi flags to honor the German dead and the glory of their war and all the good things the Nazis did, you know other than that concentration camp thing they were pretty good for Germany and believed in the beauty of German culture and its institutions.

The Washington Monument should be removed also. It reminds everyone that George Washington was a slave owner. Also the Jefferson like-wise. We mustn't have any reminders of our colorful history. Thinking about these monuments probably causes constant use of "safe rooms" for the timid liberals.

I simply do not understand this thought. It's not our heritage. "Heritage" is simply a word that is being used to try to justify support of men and women who were traitors to the USA and the Union, and fought to protect a system of oppression and slavery. It's the heritage of a failed rebellion against our nation. Robert E. Lee was not a national hero. Robert E. Lee, and all of the other Confederate Generals and officials were traitors to our country. Why would we even think of honoring those who fought against our country? Those who take up arms against our nation should not be honored. If you honor Lee with a monument, then you might as well honor John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Originally Posted by Guest

The Washington Monument should be removed also. It reminds everyone that George Washington was a slave owner. Also the Jefferson like-wise. We mustn't have any reminders of our colorful history. Thinking about these monuments probably causes constant use of "safe rooms" for the timid liberals.

Except those two did not take part in an armed rebellion against the United States like Lee and the other Confederates, and those two did serve as President of the United States. It's not even close to being a comparison.

Originally Posted by suesiegel

The last one to be removed is Robert E. Lee.

My family was not here during the civil war and in any case when they arrived they settled in the north. Robert E. Lee was in fact an honorable gentleman. Robert E. Lee is a NATIONAL HERO. Were it not for Lee and his chivalry the south would have fought a guerrilla war and it would have lasted till??????

Lee is looking for a place to stand-THE VILLAGES?

Lee is looking for a place in your yard. You won't need permission, just start screaming if you get hassled. 30 bucks on eBay.





Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Except those two did not take part in an armed rebellion against the United States like Lee and the other Confederates, and those two did serve as President of the United States. It's not even close to being a comparison.

And you know that is not true. The left is doing the same for everything that was related to slavery. It has NOTHING to do with the Confederates at all. It is solely based on the idea of eliminating certain details of history. The details that are considered embarrassing aspects today to the left. Eliminating tokens or items of such history will not eliminate historical facts. You can't erase history. I do not like the Confederate battle flag or the African-American flag but I would not mandate the outlawing of those flags. They mean something to some Americans and I consider it to be a form of free speech. Statues were set up by the citizens of those states as a reminder of a part of history.

I suppose that a statue of a couple and their children in a park would be deemed inappropriate also, if it is one male and one female. After all, it would disenfranchise a gay couple.

And NO, my family did not own slaves. My family arrived in the U.S. AFTER the civil war. Besides, the first slave owner in America was a black man from Virginia, so get over it.

Originally Posted by Guest

The statues of leaders of the South are not national heroes. They supported and lead a war to be allowed to continue to enslave a race of people that considered to be property and subhuman. It is only 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled that those states must not put into jail any married couple of a black person (1/16 black blood) and a white person. The war was not about states rights, it was only about the states right to have slaves. Period. Every comment by every contemporary Southern politician knew it. The CSA which was formed by the traitors had a constitution. Did it have anything in it about "states rights" if you think that was so important to them. Read it.

The CSA almost word for word copied the US Constitution but it did make some changes.

The US has The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

The CSA has
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired

See the difference? No state in the CSA, that bastion of states rights, has the right to prohibit slavery or even the transportation of slaves through its territory. Now if this was all about states rights, why did the CSA say the state can do what it wants except to prohibit slavery?

Or how about this addition

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states

See that, we in the CSA welcome any new territory as long as it also protects the institution of slavery.

So stop with this revisionist history of the war being about rights. It was about one "right". The "right" to own slaves

See the statement of the first state to leave the Union, South Carolina
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Take your time and read it. It states that South Carolina, like the other slaveholding states, felt that because Lincoln had won the election {On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. } it was now time to get out because the Union seemed to want to abolish slavery. It is all about slavery. Only slavery.

Go ahead, read the secession statements of the other states, same story. We are leaving because we need to protect our institution of slavery.

So now, tell me again about the nobility of those who lead this war. You may think Lee is an American hero. I do not. Nor are any of the others who supported this rebellion because they believed they needed to defend slavery.

And statues were erected not right after the war to honor their dead, no those statues were erected once the Jim Crow laws were enacted and the KKK was in its fullest glory. They were erected by a culture that did not find it necessary to honor any person who opposed slavery, no statues of Lincoln, no statues of Sojourner Truth, no tributes to H B Stowe.

These statues, and the flag we too often still see including the one on Betty Exum's house, honor the institution of slavery and those who would rather die than give up that right to own property. Nikki Haley finally understood. Maybe you can too if you read the record the south left of its own justification for war.

You don't see Germany erecting statues to its WW 2 generals saying wonderful things about the honorable causes those generals believed in. You don't see sane Germans flying Nazi flags to honor the German dead and the glory of their war and all the good things the Nazis did, you know other than that concentration camp thing they were pretty good for Germany and believed in the beauty of German culture and its institutions.

Don't give the redneck racists any facts...it will just confuse them.


And sorry folks, keep your insolent whining to yourself as the term 'redneck' is most definitely derogatory...but is NOT 'racist.'

Originally Posted by Guest

The Washington Monument should be removed also. It reminds everyone that George Washington was a slave owner. Also the Jefferson like-wise. We mustn't have any reminders of our colorful history. Thinking about these monuments probably causes constant use of "safe rooms" for the timid liberals.

You lost the War Between The States, get over it and go to your safe room...cupcake.






Deepest Sincere Wishes:

Originally Posted by Guest

The movement of the Left today is just like the Confederate movement that started the Civil War.

No it's not. The North was squeezing the south...taking more and more in taxes. Just like the Revolutionary war starters, the nations founders...they were sick of losing so much to taxes. The Civil War was over the north dominating over the south...when the south was making all the money. KING cotton wasn't just a stupid phrase...cotton WAS king. And the south grew the cotton. The south was wealthy but lacked machining for manufacture. It was a wealthy agrarian.

What does this have to do with the left who want "equality" for all...when none are equal? The left wants the government controlling...equalizing...everything and everyone.

Originally Posted by Guest

The statues of leaders of the South are not national heroes. They supported and lead a war to be allowed to continue to enslave a race of people that considered to be property and subhuman. It is only 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled that those states must not put into jail any married couple of a black person (1/16 black blood) and a white person. The war was not about states rights, it was only about the states right to have slaves. Period. Every comment by every contemporary Southern politician knew it. The CSA which was formed by the traitors had a constitution. Did it have anything in it about "states rights" if you think that was so important to them. Read it.

The CSA almost word for word copied the US Constitution but it did make some changes.

The US has The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

The CSA has
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired

See the difference? No state in the CSA, that bastion of states rights, has the right to prohibit slavery or even the transportation of slaves through its territory. Now if this was all about states rights, why did the CSA say the state can do what it wants except to prohibit slavery?

Or how about this addition

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states

See that, we in the CSA welcome any new territory as long as it also protects the institution of slavery.

So stop with this revisionist history of the war being about rights. It was about one "right". The "right" to own slaves

See the statement of the first state to leave the Union, South Carolina
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Take your time and read it. It states that South Carolina, like the other slaveholding states, felt that because Lincoln had won the election {On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. } it was now time to get out because the Union seemed to want to abolish slavery. It is all about slavery. Only slavery.

Go ahead, read the secession statements of the other states, same story. We are leaving because we need to protect our institution of slavery.

So now, tell me again about the nobility of those who lead this war. You may think Lee is an American hero. I do not. Nor are any of the others who supported this rebellion because they believed they needed to defend slavery.

And statues were erected not right after the war to honor their dead, no those statues were erected once the Jim Crow laws were enacted and the KKK was in its fullest glory. They were erected by a culture that did not find it necessary to honor any person who opposed slavery, no statues of Lincoln, no statues of Sojourner Truth, no tributes to H B Stowe.

These statues, and the flag we too often still see including the one on Betty Exum's house, honor the institution of slavery and those who would rather die than give up that right to own property. Nikki Haley finally understood. Maybe you can too if you read the record the south left of its own justification for war.

You don't see Germany erecting statues to its WW 2 generals saying wonderful things about the honorable causes those generals believed in. You don't see sane Germans flying Nazi flags to honor the German dead and the glory of their war and all the good things the Nazis did, you know other than that concentration camp thing they were pretty good for Germany and believed in the beauty of German culture and its institutions.

They are SOUTHERN heroes.

Because they ARE subhuman...PROVE to me they are equal. Show me the black villages, the black MIT, the black country that isn't failing. As a "people" they are a dismal failure. Genetically, we are different species...Negros come from a different ancestor, different stock than EVERY other race. We ARE different species.

It's bestiality...it SHOULD be against the law. Would you allow same sex marriage? Oh...I guess you did...fools. What's next? Villagers marrying their dogs?

It WAS about the individual states RIGHT to leave the union. They HAD THE RIGHT to secede. LINCOLN started the war when he left his men on Ft Sumter and REFUSED to come get them. This lasted for many months before the south finally took action to have them removed. Not unlike OUR goading Japan to attack us by blockading their country. The slave issue comes in because the slaves were the "tractors", the "combines" of the day...sent out to do the labor that machines do today. The ONLY reason slavery disappeared is mechanization...MACHINES ended slavery. We "enslaved" them instead.

Bullsh!t...NOBODY considered the Negros to be people. That comes later when it's politically expedient.

Why don't YOU post your proof? Show us what it DOES say.

They WANTED the UNION...they DIDN'T want the overarching federal control telling the states what they could and couldn't do.

The Union did the same thing...free states and slave states. The slave states being in the south where crops are grown...free in the north where factories are built. The REAL reason for "free states" has NOTHING to do with whether slavery was good or bad...it had EVERYTHING to do with competition. Farms and plantations ALL needed slave labor to operate. Factories on the other hand...if a factory was run by slaves it produced MUCH cheaper than a factory with paid employees. Slave owner business in the north were undercutting the "regular" businesses with paid employees. THAT IS WHY THERE WERE FREE AND SLAVE STATES.

It WAS about the right to own slaves...that was part of the freedom they were seeking. People "own" dogs and cats...why not Negros?

If the federal government declared that farms could no longer have tractors...what do you think would happen?

They fought for their freedom and slave holding was part of that freedom. What if oil was never discovered...what if oil never existed...there would STILL be slavery as there is TODAY in the remote parts of Africa that haven't "modernized" with machinery.

What if the government took away everyone's pet...your dog, your cat...telling you they need to be free. How would you react? What WOULD all those suddenly freed dogs and cats DO? They can't take care of themselves. Well the slaves were and are the same...they were freed but they can't take care of themselves. If you disagree...where IS the black villages? The black MIT? Why ARE half the black population on welfare?

Once again...you're VERY one sided. The Germans did bad thing...but they ALSO did a LOT of wonderful things. Much of our technology came from Germany. Germany was FORCED into WWII because of all the crap the WWI allies dumped on them...the reparations they were forced to pay.

You "know" the propaganda that was taught to you in school. You see everything as they wish you to see it. That is why OUR history is now changing. As the minorities become the majority...THEIR history will fill the books and THEIR statues will be erected.

Originally Posted by Guest

The Washington Monument should be removed also. It reminds everyone that George Washington was a slave owner. Also the Jefferson like-wise. We mustn't have any reminders of our colorful history. Thinking about these monuments probably causes constant use of "safe rooms" for the timid liberals.

It may come to that some day. ALL traces of whites ans white history gone. His-story is written by the winners and the majority is the winner.

Originally Posted by Guest

I simply do not understand this thought. It's not our heritage. "Heritage" is simply a word that is being used to try to justify support of men and women who were traitors to the USA and the Union, and fought to protect a system of oppression and slavery. It's the heritage of a failed rebellion against our nation. Robert E. Lee was not a national hero. Robert E. Lee, and all of the other Confederate Generals and officials were traitors to our country. Why would we even think of honoring those who fought against our country? Those who take up arms against our nation should not be honored. If you honor Lee with a monument, then you might as well honor John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.

They were member of states with EVERY RIGHT to secede...DENIED that right by a federal government that depended on the taxes received from the south through cotton sales.

Originally Posted by Guest

Don't give the redneck racists any facts...it will just confuse them.


And sorry folks, keep your insolent whining to yourself as the term 'redneck' is most definitely derogatory...but is NOT 'racist.'

I have the facts...you don't.

Sure it is...do you ever call a black a "redneck"? It's exclusively used to describe whites.