papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

I understand some feel the need to remove all trace of Cival War monuments. That was a terrible time in our nation's history. However General Lee and others were part of our history and some feel the need to honor them. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many more of our founding fathers were s***e owners. Do we remove their faces from our money? Do we tear down the Washington and Jefferson monuments? When do we say, "Enough is enough." Maybe this is just the start and Washington and Jefferson are on someone's list for removal.

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

It is the left. They condone mob violence for the sake of furthering their agenda, which has the removal of President Trump at the top of it's to do list.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

George Washington had s***es, as did Thomas Jefferson; however, they were not t*****rs. They did not attempt to destroy this nation. They did not cause the deaths of Americans, or hold them in pitiful POW camps.

Some of them were excellent generals.

We do not commemorate generals for their excellence, but for their service to the nation, those who contributed to what we are as a nation, who furthered our ideals and ambitions, not those who labored to strengthen the whips and chains, to further the violence and domination, to reduce the freedom of the innocent, or to increase the toil in service to the owners of human souls.

We do not commemorate those who wish to destroy the USA, who slaughter our troops or wish to destroy our institutions, whose dream is more souls in chains, less freedom or perpetual s***ery.

If these ideals offend you, perhaps you have no idea of humanity, or justice, or Christianity, or mercy. Perhaps you are anathema to our nation, to its ideals, to our Consititution, to the Declaration. Perhaps you should follow Donald Trump, build another nation--in some other location, with some other Constitution, with some other ideals, someplace else, someplace far, far away.

user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32

Lee was a t*****r to his country and he fought a war to continue s***ery... George Washington, Thomas Jefferson were American patriots, who happened to own s***es...

hopefully you can see the difference between two patriots and a t*****r.

FlyingTiger Loc: Tortola, BVI

You are a lying sack of s**t. Lee did not even own s***es. So all of a sudden you f*ggot lefties can excuse a s***eholder as long as he made a few statements you like? You are a piece of s**t. A lying piece of s**t.

This is not about s***ery, it is not about the Confederacy, it is not about the Civil War. It is about power. The actions that you see by the left in America today are the very same that happened in Mao's China and Khmer Cambodia. It is about power and what can happen next is not pretty. You silly fucking fool.

ejrmaine Loc: South Carolina

Removing statues, does not change history. These patriots and heros played a significant role in our history. Their conduct was based on the norms of their times. Get over it, removing their statues, will not alter history. Be proud of who we are.

FlyingTiger Loc: Tortola, BVI

What do you want to do next cocksucker, dig up the Confederate dead? Hot Springs is going to get very small for you soon s**t head. You are a lying lunatic fool.

FlyingTiger Loc: Tortola, BVI

You hypocritical Bastard.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Lee did not own s***es. Our founding fathers owned people as property. If you are going to say s***ery was legal during Washington's time, it was legal during lee's time. All three men were patriots in their time. Being a patriot has nothing to do with it. If I just "happen" to shoot someone have I not committed a wrong? As my original post said, when do we say enough of this?

user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32

It's funny tink, you only show your stupidity to me when you post.... I pray for your family and those you think are your friends.

The notion that Lee opposed s***ery has roots in Southern folklore. “This is a little bit of white washing of his image that took place after the Civil War when he was resurrected as a hero of the Lost Cause – as somebody who was very honorable, a great military general and also somebody who morally opposed s***ery,” Manisha Sinha, American History professor at the University of Connecticut, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

this is what the right-wingers say, LOL you are wrong again

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/15/fact-check-did-robert-e-lee-oppose-s***ery/

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

Buckle up, the left has hit on something they feel they can ride into a new socialist America. Just look at their mobs in the streets, kinda reminiscent of how the C*******ts came to power in Russia. With people like Bill Ayers at the helm of their belief system, all you can expect is more of the same.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

You don't seem to know Civil war history.

Lee tried to save what he perceived as the nation because he felt the Federal government was trying to impose illegal laws on his country. Not that I agree with his viewpoint.

The Northern forces did slaughter American citizens, Southern troops who were still citizens of the US.

The Northern forces did hold American citizens, Southern troops who were still citizens of the US, in pitiful POW camps.

Northern troops did try to destroy Southern American institutions. Not that I agree with the Southern institutions.

The South did not wish to destroy the USA, they felt the Federal government was trying to destroy their version of the US.

Let me be clear, I in no way condone the actions of s***ery or the secession of the Southern states.

However, I understand some still wish to honor those who served in the Southern army.

As I stated in my original post, if we are going to start removing memorials because of s***ery then we must do it across the board. Our founding fathers were just as guilty of moral sins as Southern Civil War heroes by having s***es.

But this continued removal of monuments has got to stop unless we play fair and level the board for everyone.

And what does President Trump have to do with any of this? Oh, I know you must be one of the liberal sore losers so you must blame everything bad in your life on him.

Grow up.

user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32

I totally understand their complex motives, but bottom line, the confederates decided to solve their issues with violence against the republic... hence, they all become t*****rs. where else, do the losers get to erect monuments? (and remember, many of the monuments were erected much later in response to civil rights movements)

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

You don't understand, the South felt the Federal government was illegally changing their way of life.

They felt the only way to preserve their way of live was to no longer be part of the Republic.

Do you know who fired the first shots of the war?

Do you feel Washington and Jefferson were justified in owning s***es? Is that why you wish to give them a pass on this?

user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32

I do understand. S***ery was an economic and social institution in the south. But the main battle was over the future of s***ery in the US. The free states held a slight e*******l advantage, and the s***e states wanted the new states to allow s***ery so they could dominate the government, otherwise s***ery's days were obviously numbered. Lincoln made a call, effectively saying, "just like the mafia, once you join, you cannot quit" It was the definitive battle of state's rights vs federal rights...changed the course of history!

I believe it was second corporal Leonard Hansen aged 19, of the newly formed confederate army (no divisional information at the time) firing an 8" artillery piece at Fort Sumter, South Carolina slightly before dawn on 4/12/1861.

Washington, Jefferson and Lee were all products of their time. I don't think it's fair to call them r****ts, unless you would also label colonial America and the rest of the world as r****t... the term loses its meaning a bit in a r****t world...

the critical difference here is that the first two worked to put a new country together, the third to take that same country apart.