Social Confederate Robert E Lee statue of Charlottesville Melted Down to create new 'art'.

AWilder said:
Nothing racist about coming to a Robert e Lee thread to fight about George floyd's murder being a good thing.
Click to expand...
In a Jeff Foxworthy voice....

"If you simultaneously defend a lifeless statue of a white slaver , while supporting the actual murder of a black human being....you just might be a racist..... I mean redneck"
 
tastaylvr said:
What are you even trying to argue here? That slave masters who viewed black people in the same vein as objects did so out of greed and not racism?

Is this your aha gotcha moment??

Jfc lol
Click to expand...

Not at all. The argument earlier was that slaves were "cheap" labor.

A slave cost around 5 years wages. I was just pointing out that buying slaves wasn't a guarantee of success
 
Source said:
McIntire was an unabashed racist. He commissioned the statues with the purpose of promoting “the lost cause”. I provided a source for this. If you’re unfamiliar with the lost cause I suggest you do some research and reading before responding.




The Lee and Jackson statues date to the early twentieth century. Paul G. McIntire, a Charlottesville graduate of the University of Virginia, commissioned them—Lee in 1917 and Jackson in 1919—and purchased the lands upon which they currently reside. Once completed, the statues were unveiled at Confederate reunions.


statues.law.virginia.edu

About | Charlottesville Statues

The Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson statues in Charlottesville, Virginia garnered national attention in 2017. Given this widespread interest, the Charlottesville Statues Legal History Research Guide provides resources for those interested in the statues' past and present. It...
statues.law.virginia.edu statues.law.virginia.edu


History of Paul Goodloe McIntire | Department of Art

art.as.virginia.edu art.as.virginia.edu
Click to expand...

For some odd reason, I thought we were talking about the Lee statue in Richmond - the reason I said it went up in 1890. My bad, no clue how I've been posting in a thread about Charlottesville without knowing.
 
Sinister said:
Again, the Confederacy took forts with Military force after declaring themselves a separate Country. Right this second of Virginia declared themselves a separate Country the Federal Government would first attempt to negotiate. If Virginia went on to send their National Guard to occupy Langley, a base of the Federal Government, that is an act of War. The first "battles" are often counted as traditional land battles. When they took Forts, they were waging War. Their President and Vice President said as much. And of course battles weren't initially fought in the North, the South wasn't reclaiming territory, the North were.
Click to expand...

Genrally the union soldiers abandoned the forts and there was no force. It would have been a civil matter for courts to decide.

And no, all those early battles in VA weren't to reclaim union forts; they were to surround and take Richmond.
 
Sinister said:
You have been given 2 referenced to Historical works that dismiss the notion that there was no regard for abolishing slavery among the Union Army before the Emancipation proclamation. In retort all you did was argue that SOME didnt have the same sentiment and go right back to repeating the claim. But let's entertain your notion for half a second:

If the North didnt give a f*ck about abolishing slavery then WHY would Lincoln use the Emancipation Proclamation as a "War Tactic?" That makes even less sense. Lincoln was under tremendous geopolitical pressure to end slavery, bot only did Union Soldiers want it abolished, and racists in the North, but the World did under threat of economic sanction against the US.

Again you're attempting to use the small fires approach. Yes some slave States remained in the Union, are you going to say why? You going to detail that each of those States was struggling between Union loyalists and Confederates who had drafted articles of secession, but were unable to fully take control of the States? Or are you going to misrepresent the positions of the States to bolster an argument you already weren't making very well.
Click to expand...

The EP was 2 years into the war and the EP did not end slavery; it only ended in for states in rebellion.

It was a war tactic because it meant that any territory that the union controlled within the south would make those slaves free thus cutting resources (labor that was maintained supply routes, fed and supplied southern troops).

By your logic northern soldiers only wanted to end slavery in part of the country. There's as much revisionism about the war by the North as there was by the South. FFS, Grant's wife kept 1 save with her throughout the war while they rented the other 3 until 1865.
 
WklySportsMemes said:
It is. Crimes against humanity are a thing.
You walked right into a trap and want to play semantics to save face. It's a crime according to your own words. Is your memory poor?
How low is your I.Q.?

Care to move the goalpost back to the topic you are getting ragdolled on?
Click to expand...

Dude, are you retarded or just illiterate? It's a moral crime (sin) to cheat on your spouse, to watch porn, or to take advantage of somone.

If you're just going to be stupid we can stop now. Yes, I walked into your trap lol.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
Genrally the union soldiers abandoned the forts and there was no force. It would have been a civil matter for courts to decide.

And no, all those early battles in VA weren't to reclaim union forts; they were to surround and take Richmond.
Click to expand...

Seizing of Federal Property is absolutely considered use of force. Come on now.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
The EP was 2 years into the war and the EP did not end slavery; it only ended in for states in rebellion.

It was a war tactic because it meant that any territory that the union controlled within the south would make those slaves free thus cutting resources (labor that was maintained supply routes, fed and supplied southern troops).

By your logic northern soldiers only wanted to end slavery in part of the country. There's as much revisionism about the war by the North as there was by the South. FFS, Grant's wife kept 1 save with her throughout the war while they rented the other 3 until 1865.
Click to expand...

That is not my logic, you have merely picked a point to contend and won't let it go regardless of any evidence presented otherwise. You are representing the notion that abolishment of slavery must be done on one fell swoop in order for abolitionism to be considered a point of the Union, but this is nonsensical. Liberal politicians of the day (Republicans) understood that abolishing slavery would take time and adjustment away from that economic model, ESPECIALLY in the South. So the first thing proposed was a ban on westward expansion of the institution and even THAT was enough for slave States to get uppity and threaten secession. But the overall notion was that slavery must end or the US was going to face catastrophic trade sanctions that would have ruined the Country. Not to mention that plenty of Union Soldiers, and leaders of the day, personally hated the institution of slavery.

Abolition wasnt merely a War tactic, enacting it or preventing it was a main contention of either side. Remove slavery and there is literally nothing to fight over. The contention that slavery was a secondary issue to the Civil War is just false.
 
WklySportsMemes said:
In a Jeff Foxworthy voice....

"If you simultaneously defend a lifeless statue of a white slaver , while supporting the actual murder of a black human being....you just might be a racist..... I mean redneck"
Click to expand...
No one ever mentioned "supporting" the murder of another human being and stating that he happened to be "Black" is irrelevant. I was pointing out at the same Time Floyds statues were being put in place in cities Lee's statues were being taken down by white liberals who suffer from unwarranted and unjustified White Guilt....Its comical.
 
Yeah, because "unwarranted and unjustified white guilt" is the only possible reason a white person could have for thinking a monument to a racist fighting on behalf of slave driving is a bad thing.
 
Super_Nintendo said:
the term racist is real and has meaning but the left bastardized it and made the real version really hard to spot, while also acting like the real version at the same time. libs are the real racists, they have zero expectations for minorities and literally believe in the same racist tropes that real racists do but with added compassion.

racists: "minorities are inferior"

shitlibs: "minorities are inferior" + they need our help
Click to expand...

Do liberals say minorities are inferior, or do they say minorities have been mistreated and are entitled to considerations?

Chuds say "fuck minorities, bootstraps all the way." After stealing their boots. And breaking their ankles.
 
Sinister said:
Seizing of Federal Property is absolutely considered use of force. Come on now.
Click to expand...

Seizing and seizing by force are 2 different things. It's the reason nothing happened until the union tried to reinforce Sumter and were fired on.
 
ObsoleteSoul said:
Man, that is weak.... Could have came up with something better. Guess shit person=Shit "art".
Click to expand...
What if they melted it down and re molded it as a statue to George Floyed…
 
PainIsLIfe said:
Dude, are you retarded or just illiterate? It's a moral crime (sin) to cheat on your spouse, to watch porn, or to take advantage of somone.

If you're just going to be stupid we can stop now. Yes, I walked into your trap lol.
Click to expand...
We are arguing a moral crime here, slavery was legal. You sound like an absolute clown. Yes, stop being slow & educate yourself instead of trying to divert the topic.
"wHaT kINdA cRiMe wAS iT??? hA hA ha gOtChA"
Asked and answered. Move along.
 
Lucas1980 said:
No one ever mentioned "supporting" the murder of another human being and stating that he happened to be "Black" is irrelevant. I was pointing out at the same Time Floyds statues were being put in place in cities Lee's statues were being taken down by white liberals who suffer from unwarranted and unjustified White Guilt....Its comical.
Click to expand...
Its comical to demonize people who put up memorials of a victim instead of the POS who killed him.
I love how you think you're not exposing your true agenda. Hell, maybe you're in denial....
 
Frank Kain said:
Hey, at least I don’t sound like a fool, like you. I live in the real world. Again, you’re arguing that those men (n vs s) died with slavery on their minds? You’re maintaining that? Whew, ok…
Click to expand...

You do sound like a fool, you can't properly interpret slave owning statistics in disproportion properly which is why you changed the subject.

And you're still not important, deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,033
Messages
55,532,276
Members
174,819
Latest member
TeKa

Share this page

Back
Top