You want to take our memorials down because your feelings got hurt? Ok no problem...

You want to take our memorials down because your feelings got hurt? Ok no problem, we'll just cast new Confederate statues and put them on top of new marble slabs in their place. They'll look nicer and brand new anyway

Also the money is coming out of your food stamps

Kek

For a group who likes to decry participation trophies, you lads sure like to reward a failed treasonous confederacy with shitty statues.

You want to recast new statues for people who fought to keep slaves just because your feelings got hurt when they were taken down? Ok no problem, we'll just take those monuments down too. They'll look even better shattered on the ground, like the rest of the anti-American Confederacy.

This man is the general Lee.

Man of mans, not remove part of history of EE.UU is Heresy

>treasonous confederacy

treason confed

>treasfed

trefed

you been trefed m8

> who fought to keep slaves
already wrong
go back to school

The good part is if people set them up on private property all over the US but visible from a public street or boulevard nobody can do jack shit about it

I love it when the socialists talk about treason, like they even give a fuck about their country to begin with

Why is the left so deadset on empowering blacks, removing history, causing hatred? Nobody alive owned slaves, yall act like the world owes you something

Yea but the second your grass gets too long the town will fine you. Go figure.

They are literally giant participation trophies to celebrate the fact that you lost but still want recognition for having showed up.

you lost, get over it

People died. These are in rememberance. I don't think the kids who get participation trophies fought and died for anything, jerk

Um. Yeah that is what it was about. But on a grander level it was about the rich doing what's best for themselves no matter the cost to society. Most Southerners were far too poor to own slaves.

Money. It's always about the money. Slaves were the automation of the day. Robots are the new slaves and they are going to make everyone poorer. Maybe one day we fight a war for emancipation of robots. Wouldn't surprise me. Still gonna be rich vs. everyone else.

I guess you want to tear down the Vietnam memorial wall too you American-hating faggot

You lost. You need a snowflake participation trophy to make you feel better.

black people sale black people as slaves

Actually the Vietnam Wall is pretty much the same thing. All war memorials are. They're just ways to try to justify and rationalize the loss of life.

The Vietnam memorial which is a remembrance of the dead is nothing like the hagiographic statues to failed generals that civil war monuments are.

Snowflakes are generally leftists. I'm far from that

I don't get why people want to tear them down. They consider them symbol of hate.if that's the case then why not keep them up as a reminder of why they were cast and not to do those things again? It doesn't make sense.

Could some one tell me why you consider yourself patriots if you want traitors memorialized? These men carried oit high treason against the united states of america.

In response to the Confederate memorials, who gives a shit if they won or lost? I'm sure you know of statues of black people who were killed (lost). Should we tear those down just because they lost?

Would love to see a Nate Turner statue in front of every courthouse in the South. We must cherish our history.

Just move them to a museum. It's really that simple.

>fought to keep slaves

People keep saying this, and if that were true then they would have a point. But it's simply not true. People have a fundamental lack of knowledge and context about the civil war. Abolition was a fringe movement at the beginning of the war, and it wasn't until several years into the war that Lincoln used it as a tool to help win the war (to keep Euro's out of the fight among other reasons). But for people who don't know anything about it, the civil war is condensed into a single event, so they can then say the south fought to keep slaves, which they didn't. But saying they did fits right into the team sport of politics that everyone likes to play on their echo chamber facebook pages. And the sole motivation here is not because people are (pretending to be) offended by statues, but it's the desire to see your team score a point and see the other team get pissed off. It's all a god damn waste of time. No one cared about this last week, and they won't care about it next week.

They aren't participation trophies, they are memorials erected 100+ years ago by people who lived through the war and knew people who fought in it. They are there to honor the Americans who fought and died. But keep being a faggot.

Exactly.
At most at that.

Nope. Read the articles of Secession for all the confederate states. You might actually learn some history

Of course they are going to mention slavery in their founding documents. But the threat of abolition did not start it. Try to keep up you fucking idiot. See, this is why this issue is so aggravating. You have people willing accept completely wrong shit because it fits with their teams talking points. You're a neckbeard in 2017 that has co-opted a 19th century war you know jack shit about as a point of debate. You're that fucking retarded.

you know who says that? nazis

lol, it's not as simple as black and white (literally). Most southerners during that war, if asked why they are fighting would probably state their nation/homes were being invaded by a foreign nation. Sure, they had a slave society but to think all southern men owned slaves would be to think all members of the armed forces are rich land owners. To think the motivation for fighting was solely to continue slavery is simply lazy/stupid.

...

america really is that stupid

Are you a fucking retard, the great majority of these racist statues were erected between the 1920s and 1940s during the Jim Crow era so that the white man could remind the black man who was in charge.

It's not history, its oppression.

Here's Georgia's, Trumptard:
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.

/thread

>To think the motivation for fighting was solely to continue slavery is simply lazy/stupid.

Even after emancipation was declared, you'd be hard pressed to find many confederate soldiers who were writing home to talk about how they are putting their ass on the line to preserve slavery.

People saying they fought to preserve slavery... that's like saying Iraq 2.0 was fought to liberate the Iraqis. That was the rebranding of it after the search for WMD's turned up with zilch and the war became even more unpopular. In a long war like the civil war, there is a timeline of events and a context, and people are just choosing to be ignorant about it.

Say it aint so. Was the confederate states of america founded because they wanted to own black people.

Texas, fucking moron:
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?

Facts confuse Trumpanzees

The poors were convinced to fight in a war against their brothers out of some stupid notion of state pride.
I wager the majority of the traitors who fought in the confederate army didn't give half a shit about the wealthy land owners who had plantations full of slaves, but they were tricked into thinking that the place they called home was threatened and worth killing their fellow americans over.

nope

Again, abolition was not on the table at any point. Slavery was an issue, but not abolition. The issue was that Congress had a delicate balance of power between northern and southern states. The country was not like it is now. State governments were the seats of power, and states were in competition with each other with a weak federal government that many distrusted. As territories moved toward statehood, whether they would be non-slave or slave states threatened to shift that balance, and this caused decades of turmoil in the 1840s on. Missouri and Kansas ignited civil wars. Presidents kept kicking the can down the road because they didn't want to be the ones to deal with it. That was the cause of the war, not some watered down simpleton explanation of "the south wanted to keep slaves". I know infinitely more about this than you, so fuck the fuck off with your dumbass opinions.

pretty much that

the main reason the south states started to seperate was because they were primarily agricultural states, the government decided to put heavy taxes and tariffs in that sector which threatened their existence
sure, slavery was a big part since it was a cheap source of work, but slavery was already declining and would've been gone sooner or later anyway

So, what you are saying is that the confederates were traitors to their nation

>but they were tricked into thinking that the place they called home was threatened and worth killing their fellow americans over.

No one was tricked. Lincoln had just called up many thousands of volunteers to put down any rebellion. That's called an invasion force, not a police force. I realize that you would immediately raise the white flag in a situation like that, but people back then had pride in their land, and their state was their country, not Washington DC.

Again someone is looking at history through the lens of their 2017 point of view. "Traitor to their nation" is not a valid interpretation because that's not a 19th century American world view.

So what you are saying is that they were traitors?

They were traitors then. They are traitors now. Get over it, butthurtfag.

"you lost. get over it"

isnt that your usual phrase?

Was the definition of Treason different back then?

That is some grade A revisionist history, congrats. And love how your opinions are offered to counter the actual articles of Secession , ie. Facts. Do you know the difference between facts and opinions? Many Trump worshippers don't.

but but muh narrative

If they were just petitioning for the takedown of confederate statues I wouldn't have a problem. But then they damaged a statue in Atlanta last night that represents the peace acquired after the war. Just blindly breaking shit because they didn't read a fucking plaque at the base of the statue. Plus there are calls now to remove US president monuments and even demolish MT Rushmore.

They are just picking any target they can find for any reason and destroying it. Judging the past based on their own standards of the present. Removing history is some Ministry of Truth shit. So no, I'm not prepared to go Antifa a single inch.

Already explained your dumb point. Obviously a new country with slavery in place is going to mention it in their founding documents. That does not mean they were being threatened with abolition of slavery. You're connecting things that are unconnected. That's like saying the revolutionary war was fought because the Brits were threatening to ban newspapers. I mean freedom of press is right there in the founding documents so it's proof right? stupid fucking bitch.

Absolute bullshit revisionist "lost cause" history. The confederate states seceded because the wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. Literally every contemporary source from the period says that. Every speech by every confederate political leader, every article of secession, even the confederate constitution.

We are over it. It's the left that's all of a sudden (100 years later) brought the issue up

Stop pretending that you even care. You didn't last week, and next week you'll be posting about whatever Huffingtonpost tells you to care about.

>The confederate states seceded because the wanted to preserve the institution of slavery

Could not possibly be more false. You have absolutely no fucking clue. Why have opinions about something and even debate it with people when you know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? It's like me, who knows shit about cars, going onto a mechanic forum and calling everyone a dumbass because they don't agree with me.

Are you really this stupid? You are citing a bunch of agitprop spread to keep you distracted from more pressing issues.

Many civil war monuments honor dead soldiers, as much as the Vietnam memorial does.

There are ignorant bitches on all sides.
But, that doesn't make you right.

I think I get it now. They wanted to own people, so they betrayed their nation.

Pic related

Do you think it might be because of the overt racism of our President of the United States?

Hrm... This is getting confusing. What you're saying is that the Confederacy were racist traitors?

>Do you think it might be because of the overt racism of our President of the United States?

Cite one racist thing he has said.

Many civil war monuments have nothing to do with honoring anybody and instead serve to demonstrate to the black man that the white man is in charge and that the black man should remember that.

Weren't all these confederate statues erected by bitter angry southern democrats anyway?

Tearing down their own shit

it was a mass produced hollow statue sold to 100s of communities 50 years after the war to celebrate treason in defense of slavery and remind the blacks whats up of they step out of line.

>instead serve to demonstrate to the black man that the white man is in charge and that the black man should remember that

Proof? Otherwise that's just a line people say because it backs up their point of view, i.e. is complete fucking bullshit.

protip: If that were true, they wouldn't erect monuments to the men who lost, resulting in the freedom of the blacks. They'd erect statues of slave owners whipping slaves.

There is no credible historian alive that believes this. Zero. It was about slavery. Period. End of discussion.

You are getting confused by labels.

"Southern Democrat" = "Republican"

The parties have changed names, and it's super confusing I know, but they've traded names a couple of times. There is usually a conservative party and a liberal one. Back then, "Democrat" was the conservative party.

They should put up a statue to Leroy Washington, nigger patriot, who is famous for saying:

"Give me liberty or suck my dick, you honky redcoat motherfuckers"

Yeah, because we keep the Nazi death camps around because Europe is still teeming with Hitler sympathizers. Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

>doesn't know slaves were the number one asset of the south in billions of dollars
>doesn't know right to slavery was literally written into state documents of succession
youre the dumbfuck here pal.

I worry that you actually believe this stuff and are not being intentionally obtuse to try to argue your point....

Being overtly racist was frowned upon. The fine southeren gentleman appreciated the subtlety of racism, enacting laws that took the former slaves and maintained their slavery, despite being freed by a constitutional amendment.

The only thing you're an expert in is bullshit revisionist history.

Checked. Thanks for explaining. Seriously. I didn't know this

It does explain why Germans like to wave their swastika flags...

What dumb fucking college told you That?

You can't keep revising history and changing facts to fit your agenda

You beta cucklords are a waste of oxygen

Never trust the labels. Consider the actions and intentions.

I'm not sure if I should have prefaced my prior comment more heavily with sarcasm or not.

No. They don't. They're not the snowflakes that need participation trophies to make them feel better about losing...apparently it's only racist southern rednecks that need that.

I'll take "Dixiecrats" for 1000, Alex

>Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting of the general "anti-Nebraska" movement where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854, in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin. The name was partly chosen to pay homage to Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party.

And? That justifies mob violence?

As I said if they were just taking down the statues I would have no problem, but that isn't the only thing this is about.

Confederates sure have a thing for horses.

You're actually becoming a parody right now. R/the_donald sent you here?

the only reason the south surrenders was because he signed. That's why he has a statue. If he told the south to fight to the end, there wouldn't have been an end to the war. He saved millions of lives by swallowing his pride.

*surrendered

that was crispus attucks but thanks for trying. your participation trophy is in the mail.

He also told everyone that they shouldn't put statues up of him and they forget it and let the nation heal.

We should replace the confederate soldier statues with revolutionary war statues cast from likeness of actors in the Hamilton musical.

Northern Democratic Party
In the Election of 1860, the Democratic Party split into two parties, the Northern Democratic Party and the Southern Democratic Party.

By the late 1850s, the Democratic Party was split over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats generally opposed slavery's expansion while many Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist across the United States. In the presidential election of 1860, the Democratic Party split in two, with Stephen Douglas running for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge representing the Southern Democratic Party. Two other political parties competed in this election as well. One of these parties was the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its candidate. Lincoln and the Republican Party opposed slavery's expansion. The other party was the Constitutional Union Party. The party's candidate, John Bell, hoped to compromise the differences between the North and South by extending the Missouri Compromise line across the remainder of the United States. Slavery would be permitted in new states established south of the line, while the institution would be illegal in new states formed north of the line. The Northern and Southern Democratic Parties only officially existed in the election of 1860.

I don't give participation awards to losers. The south lost.

Are your feelings hurt OP? No need to answer.