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

[PainIsLIfe]

Let's hear from @HereticBD @CantCucktheTuck and @PainIsLIfe why Confederate Statues and Robert E Lee are good actually.

Statues are neither good nor bad.

If you want to discuss the actual merits - Lee fought for VA; not slavery. And while Lee didn't own Slaves, Grant; and many other northern generals, actually owned slaves.

If we're going to tear down statues and memorials of everyone that ever did anything controversial then we'll be pulling most of them down.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Why not? It's a uniquely black object, I can't speak to their taste in art but I have to believe they'd support the idea.

There's a special place in hell reserved for conservatives trying to use MLK and X to attack the black community.

There may be a place for those that neglect what they actually said and assume to speak for them as well.

In particular, both would probably shit all over most of today's black culture - artwork aside.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Statues are neither good nor bad.

If you want to discuss the actual merits - Lee fought for VA; not slavery. And while Lee didn't own Slaves, Grant; and many other northern generals, actually owned slaves.

If we're going to tear down statues and memorials of everyone that ever did anything controversial then we'll be pulling most of them down.

Lee did own slaves. WTF? And he fought for VA to keep slavery legal. Also fought against America--not just in fact but in theory (i.e., against the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution). One of the last people we should be celebrating. Grant had one slave for a year, but then fought for freedom and also for further rights of former slaves later.

 

[Mack Yancy]

Statues are neither good nor bad.

If you want to discuss the actual merits - Lee fought for VA; not slavery. And while Lee didn't own Slaves, Grant; and many other northern generals, actually owned slaves.

If we're going to tear down statues and memorials of everyone that ever did anything controversial then we'll be pulling most of them down.

So was the civil war fought over states rights?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Lee did own slaves. WTF? And he fought for VA to keep slavery legal. Also fought against America--not just in fact but in theory (i.e., against the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution). One of the last people we should be celebrating. Grant had one slave for a year, but then fought for freedom and also for further rights of former slaves later.

Lee freed all of his slaves before the war.

Grant freed his "1" when his dad told him he'd set him up if he moved back north and away from the "tribe of slave holders"

I guess we'll just pretend the other 4 slaves that his wife owned; and rented out when they moved to I'll, didn't count toward Grant's slave count.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So was the civil war fought over states rights?

That's an odd question.

Most states succeeded because they feared the loss of slavery (states rights), while others joined because they felt connected to the Confederates - VA joined after the attack on Ft Sumter. Regardless a civil war had been brewing over a host of issues for years.

Most men at the time felt an allegiance to their home state rather than the country as a whole. Thus the reason poor whites that did not benefit from slavery would join sides with their own state against the US.

 

[Andy Capp]

That's an odd question.

Most states succeeded because they feared the loss of slavery (states rights), while others joined because they felt connected to the Confederates - VA joined after the attack on Ft Sumter. Regardless a civil war had been brewing over a host of issues for years.

Most men at the time felt an allegiance to their home state rather than the country as a whole. Thus the reason poor whites that did not benefit from slavery would join sides with their own state against the US.

@Limbo Pete
BATTER UP!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lee freed all of his slaves before the war.

Grant freed his "1" when his dad told him he'd set him up if he moved back north and away from the "tribe of slave holders"

I guess we'll just pretend the other 4 slaves that his wife owned; and rented out when they moved to I'll, didn't count toward Grant's slave count.

You *just* said that Lee didn't own slaves, and then when I pointed out that you were lying, you change it to he did, but he freed them when he was too busy committing treason to manage his plantation. And then you introduce more bullshit. You can try to discuss the issue honestly, you know.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Most men at the time felt an allegiance to their home state rather than the country as a whole. Thus the reason poor whites that did not benefit from slavery would join sides with their own state against the USUS.

Poor whites siding with rich people even though it hurts their material wellbeing in order to keep minorities down. Good thing that stopped in the 19th century!

 

[Loiosh]

That's an odd question.

Most states succeeded because they feared the loss of slavery (states rights), while others joined because they felt connected to the Confederates - VA joined after the attack on Ft Sumter. Regardless a civil war had been brewing over a host of issues for years.

Most men at the time felt an allegiance to their home state rather than the country as a whole. Thus the reason poor whites that did not benefit from slavery would join sides with their own state against the US.

No southern state succeeded.

 

[Limbo Pete]

@Limbo Pete
BATTER UP!

 

[ShinkanPo]

It was pushing a narrative, a symbol of the zeitgeist of the period and after. I think a museum could have explained how, decades after the end of slavery, the South used such symbols to reinforce White Supremaicst sentiments.

But you don't want a "Night at the Museum incident"

You don't want General Lee walking out of the Museum at night and raising an unded racist army to march across America to take you and your kids.

 

[Mack Yancy]

But you don't want a "Night at the Museum incident"

You don't want General Lee walking out of the Museum at night and raising an unded racist army to march across America to take you and your kids.

But I thought General Lee wasn't racist and he just loved Virginia?

 

[ShinkanPo]

But I thought General Lee wasn't racist and he just loved Virginia?

One of these days those statues will have enough and start to fight back. !

How would people stop em if they get pissed?

 

[Source]

Lee freed all of his slaves before the war.

Grant freed his "1" when his dad told him he'd set him up if he moved back north and away from the "tribe of slave holders"

I guess we'll just pretend the other 4 slaves that his wife owned; and rented out when they moved to I'll, didn't count toward Grant's slave count.

Saying lee freed all of his slaves before the civil was is a bit of a misnomer. When his FIL died he left in charge of several plantations that had around 200 slaves in total. In his will he requested they be freed as soon as possible. Lee did not sign the deeds of manumission until Dec 1862. This was only a few days before EP went into effect. While not only did he not free them he was quite brutal of an owner as well.


The purpose of the statue was meant to promote a false narrative about the past and to change the perceptions of the future. The statue is not history. Lee was a traitor to the US.

 

[AWilder]

Lee freed all of his slaves before the war.

no he didn't.

 

[emefer]

Lee freed all of his slaves before the war.

Grant freed his "1" when his dad told him he'd set him up if he moved back north and away from the "tribe of slave holders"

I guess we'll just pretend the other 4 slaves that his wife owned; and rented out when they moved to I'll, didn't count toward Grant's slave count.

Lee was just teaching his slaves some life skills they could use after his treasonous ass failed at his attempt to keep them as slaves and they were freed

 

[djacobox372]

Statues are neither good nor bad.

If you want to discuss the actual merits - Lee fought for VA; not slavery. And while Lee didn't own Slaves, Grant; and many other northern generals, actually owned slaves.

If we're going to tear down statues and memorials of everyone that ever did anything controversial then we'll be pulling most of them down.

Leading a seditious army to overthrow the union is a hair bit more than "controversial."

Also, this statue was erected in the 1920's, from the very beginning it was more of a political statement than a monument.

 

[WklySportsMemes]

That's an odd question.

Most states succeeded because they feared the loss of slavery (states rights), while others joined because they felt connected to the Confederates - VA joined after the attack on Ft Sumter. Regardless a civil war had been brewing over a host of issues for years.

Most men at the time felt an allegiance to their home state rather than the country as a whole. Thus the reason poor whites that did not benefit from slavery would join sides with their own state against the US.

Forever the apologist I see. Why not just look at it in a modern context.

Let's say "BLM" got into office in multiple states and took control of this group of states.
Then, let's say "BLM" thought that their sovereignty rights as a state allowed them to own White people like cattle....

At that point would you consider all the people who supported "BLM" just sum good ol' boys fighting for their group's traditions. They don't mean no harm. It's not about White hate. It bout dat BLM heritage. Enslaving White people is a minor point. It' not about that . Let that go.
It's about that BLM bond. The romanticized brotherhood of their precieved superiority.

Or would you ignore all those fluff words and call them blood thirsty delusional terrorists who are trying trying to destroy the country????

Gee I wonder which framing you would choose.

White washing 101

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]