Have you noticed the change in news coverage on the Confederate statues? I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which...

Amtrain

I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which fought for the South during the War.
For the last couple of years, I have watched monuments dedicated to Lee, Jackson, Stewart, and other generals fall at the hands of a ruthless mob or at the hands of cowardly administrations in city halls and on college campuses. After the monuments to the generals came down, next came the statues to the common soldiers.
At the time, America was warned that if you allowed these statues to be destroyed, the next thing you would know, these anarchist would come after the statues of Washington and Jefferson.
The retort was, "Oh that will never happen!" Well guess what? ... not only did these i***ts destroy the statues to Washington, but also down came statues of Grant, Lincoln, the 54th Mass. Colored Troops and a number of abolitionist.
It is obvious that the people who have called for desecration of these monuments could not tell you who fought durning the War Between the States much less the motives of the participants. The true motive behind their actions was not the debasement of Confederate monument but the desecration of everything America.
Within the last two weeks, after the profanation of the Jefferson monuments, I have notice a major change in the narrative of the news media's (this includes Fox) description of the Confederacy. Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for s***ery (not a 100% correct analysis) but now the new claim is that they need to be removed because the Confederates were t*****rs.
The spineless news outlets have changed their tune because they now cannot defend Washington and Jefferson because they too owned s***es. They cannot condemn the Confederates and not do the same for these founding fathers. They had to do a "one-up" by now calling them t*****rs.
You can bet that the day Robert E. Lee declined the offer of Gen. Winfield Scott the position of commanding General of all US forces, the farthest thought on Lee's mind was that of a t*****r.
Shame on all you houses CNN, (BS)NBC and Fox.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I wondered what will happen to Washington and Jefferson, and they are not the only ones!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Amtrain wrote:

I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which fought for the South during the War.
For the last couple of years, I have watched monuments dedicated to Lee, Jackson, Stewart, and other generals fall at the hands of a ruthless mob or at the hands of cowardly administrations in city halls and on college campuses. After the monuments to the generals came down, next came the statues to the common soldiers.
At the time, America was warned that if you allowed these statues to be destroyed, the next thing you would know, these anarchist would come after the statues of Washington and Jefferson.
The retort was, "Oh that will never happen!" Well guess what? ... not only did these i***ts destroy the statues to Washington, but also down came statues of Grant, Lincoln, the 54th Mass. Colored Troops and a number of abolitionist.
It is obvious that the people who have called for desecration of these monuments could not tell you who fought durning the War Between the States much less the motives of the participants. The true motive behind their actions was not the debasement of Confederate monument but the desecration of everything America.
Within the last two weeks, after the profanation of the Jefferson monuments, I have notice a major change in the narrative of the news media's (this includes Fox) description of the Confederacy. Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for s***ery (not a 100% correct analysis) but now the new claim is that they need to be removed because the Confederates were t*****rs.
The spineless news outlets have changed their tune because they now cannot defend Washington and Jefferson because they too owned s***es. They cannot condemn the Confederates and not do the same for these founding fathers. They had to do a "one-up" by now calling them t*****rs.
You can bet that the day Robert E. Lee declined the offer of Gen. Winfield Scott the position of commanding General of all US forces, the farthest thought on Lee's mind was that of a t*****r.
Shame on all you houses CNN, (BS)NBC and Fox.

I was born on the South and am damned proud of tha... (show quote)

I am the greatgrandson of a Union Soldier.
He never fought against the "Stars and Stripes".
I am proud of CNN and MSNBC {I don't watch Fox}.
Except for battlefields and inside museums, Rebel statues should go!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Removing the statues isn't going to make the history go away. Failing to teach that history, and the lessons learned, is destined to assist in repeating that history again.
--Bob

Amtrain wrote:

I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which fought for the South during the War.
For the last couple of years, I have watched monuments dedicated to Lee, Jackson, Stewart, and other generals fall at the hands of a ruthless mob or at the hands of cowardly administrations in city halls and on college campuses. After the monuments to the generals came down, next came the statues to the common soldiers.
At the time, America was warned that if you allowed these statues to be destroyed, the next thing you would know, these anarchist would come after the statues of Washington and Jefferson.
The retort was, "Oh that will never happen!" Well guess what? ... not only did these i***ts destroy the statues to Washington, but also down came statues of Grant, Lincoln, the 54th Mass. Colored Troops and a number of abolitionist.
It is obvious that the people who have called for desecration of these monuments could not tell you who fought durning the War Between the States much less the motives of the participants. The true motive behind their actions was not the debasement of Confederate monument but the desecration of everything America.
Within the last two weeks, after the profanation of the Jefferson monuments, I have notice a major change in the narrative of the news media's (this includes Fox) description of the Confederacy. Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for s***ery (not a 100% correct analysis) but now the new claim is that they need to be removed because the Confederates were t*****rs.
The spineless news outlets have changed their tune because they now cannot defend Washington and Jefferson because they too owned s***es. They cannot condemn the Confederates and not do the same for these founding fathers. They had to do a "one-up" by now calling them t*****rs.
You can bet that the day Robert E. Lee declined the offer of Gen. Winfield Scott the position of commanding General of all US forces, the farthest thought on Lee's mind was that of a t*****r.
Shame on all you houses CNN, (BS)NBC and Fox.

I was born on the South and am damned proud of tha... (show quote)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Longshadow wrote:

I wondered what will happen to Washington and Jefferson, and they are not the only ones!

Washington and Jefferson did not fight against the "Stars and Stripes".

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

This country is falling apart—right before our eyes.
Not because of what was discussed in the opening post of this thread.
Aside from the p******c, and a doomed economy; the growing tribal hatred will destroy us. When we should be working together to control the p******c, and subsequently restore the economy; we are self-destructing in a cauldron of h**e. Too bad for our grandchildren

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Amtrain wrote:

I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which fought for the South during the War.
For the last couple of years, I have watched monuments dedicated to Lee, Jackson, Stewart, and other generals fall at the hands of a ruthless mob or at the hands of cowardly administrations in city halls and on college campuses. After the monuments to the generals came down, next came the statues to the common soldiers.
At the time, America was warned that if you allowed these statues to be destroyed, the next thing you would know, these anarchist would come after the statues of Washington and Jefferson.
The retort was, "Oh that will never happen!" Well guess what? ... not only did these i***ts destroy the statues to Washington, but also down came statues of Grant, Lincoln, the 54th Mass. Colored Troops and a number of abolitionist.
It is obvious that the people who have called for desecration of these monuments could not tell you who fought durning the War Between the States much less the motives of the participants. The true motive behind their actions was not the debasement of Confederate monument but the desecration of everything America.
Within the last two weeks, after the profanation of the Jefferson monuments, I have notice a major change in the narrative of the news media's (this includes Fox) description of the Confederacy. Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for s***ery (not a 100% correct analysis) but now the new claim is that they need to be removed because the Confederates were t*****rs.
The spineless news outlets have changed their tune because they now cannot defend Washington and Jefferson because they too owned s***es. They cannot condemn the Confederates and not do the same for these founding fathers. They had to do a "one-up" by now calling them t*****rs.
You can bet that the day Robert E. Lee declined the offer of Gen. Winfield Scott the position of commanding General of all US forces, the farthest thought on Lee's mind was that of a t*****r.
Shame on all you houses CNN, (BS)NBC and Fox.

I was born on the South and am damned proud of tha... (show quote)

If you don’t think the Civil War was 100% about s***ery I’d love to hear your analysis of what it was about.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Amtrain wrote:

Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for s***ery (not a 100% correct analysis)...

It was first and foremost about s***ery; one of the most evil and repugnant activities every undertaken by human beings.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of s***ery-- 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 s***ery 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.

South Carolina:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-s***eholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of s***ery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our s***es to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile i**********n.

Texas:

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen s***e-holding states.

By the secession of six of the s***e-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the b****t box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The main reason was the economics of s***ery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. Oh, that and states rights.
--Bob

SuperflyTNT wrote:

If you don’t think the Civil War was 100% about s***ery I’d love to hear your analysis of what it was about.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rehess wrote:

Washington and Jefferson did not fight against the "Stars and Stripes".

It's not gonna stop there......

Old Grey Beard Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

Kmgw9v wrote:

This country is falling apart—right before our eyes.
Not because of what was discussed in the opening post of this thread.
Aside from the p******c, and a doomed economy; the growing tribal hatred will destroy us. When we should be working together to control the p******c, and subsequently restore the economy; we are self-destructing in a cauldron of h**e. Too bad for our grandchildren

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

Amtrain wrote:

I was born on the South and am damned proud of that fact. Equally proud am I of my ancestors some of which fought for the South during the War.
For the last couple of years, I have watched monuments dedicated to Lee, Jackson, Stewart, and other generals fall at the hands of a ruthless mob or at the hands of cowardly administrations in city halls and on college campuses. After the monuments to the generals came down, next came the statues to the common soldiers.
At the time, America was warned that if you allowed these statues to be destroyed, the next thing you would know, these anarchist would come after the statues of Washington and Jefferson.
The retort was, "Oh that will never happen!" Well guess what? ... not only did these i***ts destroy the statues to Washington, but also down came statues of Grant, Lincoln, the 54th Mass. Colored Troops and a number of abolitionist.
It is obvious that the people who have called for desecration of these monuments could not tell you who fought durning the War Between the States much less the motives of the participants. The true motive behind their actions was not the debasement of Confederate monument but the desecration of everything America.
Within the last two weeks, after the profanation of the Jefferson monuments, I have notice a major change in the narrative of the news media's (this includes Fox) description of the Confederacy. Before, the new outlets would say the statues of Confederate soldiers were bad and needed to be removed because the South fought for s***ery (not a 100% correct analysis) but now the new claim is that they need to be removed because the Confederates were t*****rs.
The spineless news outlets have changed their tune because they now cannot defend Washington and Jefferson because they too owned s***es. They cannot condemn the Confederates and not do the same for these founding fathers. They had to do a "one-up" by now calling them t*****rs.
You can bet that the day Robert E. Lee declined the offer of Gen. Winfield Scott the position of commanding General of all US forces, the farthest thought on Lee's mind was that of a t*****r.
Shame on all you houses CNN, (BS)NBC and Fox.

I was born on the South and am damned proud of tha... (show quote)

FLOYD-19

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Longshadow wrote:

It's not gonna stop there......

Yes, the Democrats will have to re-examine their heroes from the past, and decide which features still make them "heroic". For example, Andrew Jackson's fame was as an "Indian Fighter" - in those days, he had conflict with home-boy Davy Crockett, who went west to some place called "The Alamo". Jackson and Crockett feuded in home-state Tennessee over how Jackson had treated the natives. I'm guessing Crockett will look a lot better now.

Republican William Henry Harrison also gained fame as an "Indiana Fighter", but he isn't much of a hero these days.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rehess wrote:

Yes, the Democrats will have to re-examine their h... (show quote)

Unfortunately.

I wonder if/how they'll decide on who is acceptable and who is not.