Tennessee lawmakers punish city of Memphis for removing Confederate statues

[Ahhdurr]

The main cause of your Civil War was an economical aggression of the North against the South.

No. It was slavery. You're a liar.

[Barnabas]

When the fuck did I ever state in any post in my entire history here that the North was some altruistic utopia who fought for the slaves. Yet they still freed the slaves while the South broke away from the Union and killed American soldiers in order to keep slaves. So while I understand and acknowledge the past and current failings of the U.S. you guys still seem to believe the bullshit myth of the Lost Cause of the South where your side was in the right fighting for their honor. Bullshit that is propaganda bullshit the South made up to make themselves look good.

Your reading comprehension is really bad. You still believe the lie it was about slavery. Go educate yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

No. It was slavery. You're a liar.

You also need to educate yourself.

[Orbitus]

Every nation has a right to self-determination. If they wanted an independence and self-government for their own states, it was their right, and no metropoly should have sent their troops to massacre them.

They weren't a nation. And the thing they wanted to keep was HUMAN BEINGS. They wanted the right to own fucking slaves. Sorry, if the federal government makes a law and outlaws something like slavery, you don't just get to decide to break off without a fucking fight. It probably wouldn't have been so bad, but the SOUTH ATTACKED FIRST. Don't forget that.

- - - Updated - - -

They fought for their well-being, and those "American soldiers" had their own 26 states where no one would kill them.

There might have been 26 states TOTAL at that time, but they didn't have 26 states that wanted to be with the south in the Civil war. Jesus fucking christ, learn history.

[Volardelis]

Was strictly speaking of the Civil War and the Confederates.

I see your choice of work is cherry picking.

[Orbitus]

The main cause of your Civil War was an economical aggression of the North against the South.

Again, you FAILED HISTORY. Go read their declarations of secession. Almost all of them list SLAVERY first. Not "economic aggression" of the North Vs the South. If your economy relies on owning people, then you have a pretty shitty economy.

- - - Updated - - -

Your reading comprehension is really bad. You still believe the lie it was about slavery. Go educate yourself.

- - - Updated - - -



You also need to educate yourself.

Do I have to break out the declarations of secession by the southern states? https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Pretty much nothing but talking about saving slavery in Georgia.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Again, SLAVERY.

South Carolina:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Look at that, talking about trying to "save the right to have slaves".

Texas:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Maintaining and protecting the institution of "negro slavery", was Texas' reason.

Virginia:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Apparently Virginia didn't like being oppressed because they were a slaveholding state.

Do you get it now, Barnabas?

[Ahhdurr]

You also need to educate yourself.

Nope. Sorry you're an ignorant supporter of treasonous losers, but try reading the actual reasons southern states seceded.

[Orbitus]

Nope. Sorry you're an ignorant supporter of treasonous losers, but try reading the actual reasons southern states seceded.

I just showed him, but let's see if he learns something.

[Ahhdurr]

I just showed him, but let's see if he learns something.

I was actually going to quote them like you did, but I figured it was a waste of time.

Edit: And I was right. Can't beat willful ignorance.

[Barnabas]

Again, you FAILED HISTORY. Go read their declarations of secession. Almost all of them list SLAVERY first. Not "economic aggression" of the North Vs the South. If your economy relies on owning people, then you have a pretty shitty economy.

- - - Updated - - -



Do I have to break out the declarations of secession by the southern states? https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

Georgia:

Pretty much nothing but talking about saving slavery in Georgia.

Mississippi:

Again, SLAVERY.

South Carolina:

Look at that, talking about trying to "save the right to have slaves".

Texas:

Maintaining and protecting the institution of "negro slavery", was Texas' reason.

Virginia:

Apparently Virginia didn't like being oppressed because they were a slaveholding state.

Do you get it now, Barnabas?

So you just admitted it was economically motivated. Well at least that's the truth. Soon after the war was over and lincoln signed the proclamation southern blacks that couldn't prove they had a job were employed by force to northern companies. So yeah you freed blacks for what again? It couldn't be economic gain?

Virginia left the union because they felt lincoln used unconstitutional powers to gather forces to invade the south. The whole "Slavery" was the reason is a modern theory. It was all economics like I stated many times already and was even admitted as a reason above.

[Orbitus]

So you just admitted it was economically motivated. Well at least that's the truth. Soon after the war was over and lincoln signed the proclamation southern blacks that couldn't prove they had a job were employed by force to northern companies. So yeah you freed blacks for what again? It couldn't be economic gain?

Can you fucking read? Did you casually ignore EVERYTHING that I bolded? These were either the first paragraph or the first items they listed in their declarations of secession. ALL of them were about fucking SLAVERY. Jesus fucking christ.

- - - Updated - - -

I was actually going to quote them like you did, but I figured it was a waste of time.

Edit: And I was right. Can't beat willful ignorance.

Yeah, not surprising. It goes against the bubble of ignorance he has surrounded himself with. Must be from one of those states and doesn't want to acknowledge that his state was a slave holder that didn't want to lose their slaves, so they started a war over it.

[Barnabas]

Can you fucking read? Did you casually ignore EVERYTHING that I bolded? These were either the first paragraph or the first items they listed in their declarations of secession. ALL of them were about fucking SLAVERY. Jesus fucking christ.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, not surprising. It goes against the bubble of ignorance he has surrounded himself with. Must be from one of those states and doesn't want to acknowledge that his state was a slave holder that didn't want to lose their slaves, so they started a war over it.

Yeah I have and I'm going to keep repeating it was economics. Like slavery has always been about economics. Are you obtuse?

[Ahhdurr]

Yeah, not surprising. It goes against the bubble of ignorance he has surrounded himself with. Must be from one of those states and doesn't want to acknowledge that his state was a slave holder that didn't want to lose their slaves, so they started a war over it.

Doesn't matter. The treasonous losers and their descendants will continue to be losers until they are completely wiped from history. Sadly it won't be soon enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I have and I'm going to keep repeating it was economics. Like slavery has always been about economics. Are you obtuse?

It wasn't about slavery! It was about the economics of slavery!

[Orbitus]

Yeah I have and I'm going to keep repeating it was economics. Like slavery has always been about economics. Are you obtuse?

If your economy can't survive without slavery, then your economy is shit. Especially since we were one of the last western countries that had slavery still.

[Zubacz]

If said "logic" was silly enough to equate a list of cultures with monuments to a polity that was explicitly founded for the purpose of keeping humans as property, sure.

If you think in any war one side is evil and the other is good, you are just brainwashed. The war wasn't about slaves, that was a minor aspect. And yes, those cultures did far worse atrocities than the Confederacy, yet we are OK with their monuments.

[Eldar45]

No. It was slavery. You're a liar.

Slavery was definitely the proverbial spark in the keg of gun powder, but that keg had started to be filled way back in the 1820s. Calling it a war about slavery basically ignored the 50 years leading up to it.

To the southerner it was a war about the federal government overstepping its bounds for the last time, to the northerner it was about preserving the union. If you think the Union's objective was to ban slavery through warfare, then I think you need to carefully read the Emancipation Proclamation.

The American Civil War is far more complicated than most people can begin to understand. The Southerners fought to remove themselves from the Union for far more reasons than just to preserve slavery. The vast majority weren't even slave owners.

[Barnabas]

If your economy can't survive without slavery, then your economy is shit. Especially since we were one of the last western countries that had slavery still.

Yet the north after the war took advantage of that labor and through force of law made them work. The county got paid not the former slave. So was the north's economy not dependent on the same type of labor? This is documented and happened to many people. So saying crack is better than heroin is yeah you get the idea. The industrial revolution was brutal and lead to many of the problems we face as a nation today still.

[Zubacz]

Russia would first have to build statues honouring Napoleon before they could topple those statues...

But it seems my actual point was totally lost on you. My point was Memphis took down statues of people that wanted to destroy The United States and now, because of that, The Tennessee House is withholding funding that was going to go to celebrating how proud they are to be part of those same United States. If you still don't see the flaw in that reasoning...I can't help you.

"People who wanted to destroy The United States"... What? You seem to think that war was some good vs. evil fairy-tale.

[Deleted]

American's being a bunch of babies again I see.
As a Dutch guy from Jewish decent I would have 0 issues with a statue of Hitler standing in my town.

But American's must tear down everything they don't like or agree with. Grow the fuck up bunch of children.

[Dhrizzle]

I despise these leftist cowards and everything they stand for, I'm pro-statue because it teaches history and how important it is not to let these monsters return.

A living history that burns and hurts is the best way to prevent that evil from ever returning

Statues don't teach history they celebrate significant figures, Memphis decided those figures were not worth celebrating.

[Atrea]

Funny how people didn't have an issue with those statues until recently.

People have been "having an issue" with them for decades; it's just that now, those people are getting through to everybody else.

Yes, believe it or not, something you have been doing -- something you never gave any thought to for your whole life -- could have been very very wrong.

Most resistance to removing these kinds of statues comes from people too afraid/ashamed/stubborn to admit that.