Removing Confederate generals statues

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

And of course thanks for the typical Woody non-response.

WSS

yep.

[cccjwh]

On 7/27/2021 at 3:09 PM, Gorka said:

The sentence you cited seems to be a misnomer. It only implies treason.

No one was ever tried for the offense of treason.

My understaning is that in order to be pardoned for a crime, one would of had to be first found guilty of it, no?

Whether Lee or Underwood realized it, there were also some serious constitutional and legal obstacles in the path of a conviction—or even a trial—for treason. For one thing, the Constitution’s definition of treason is really a very narrow one, and much would dangle on the exact meaning of “levying war.”
Abraham Lincoln had insisted from the beginning that since war is a condition that exists only between two sovereign nations, and since the Confederacy was in his view only an insurrection, no actual war legally existed between the North and the South. 

Cal owned you on this one.

Nothing ever changes.

 

During his presidency Lincoln pardon 17 people of what again? Oh Yeah. treason. Who commits treason again? Traitors. You guys keep defending your traitors. It's both hilarious and sad. 

[calfoxwc]

4 hours ago, cccjwh said:

During his presidency Lincoln pardon 17 people of what again? Oh Yeah. treason. Who commits treason again? Traitors. You guys keep defending your traitors. It's both hilarious and sad. 

The confederate army may have been called "traitors" but they were NOT TRYING TO OVERTHROW OR UNDERMINE THE GOV, they just wanted to leave it.

  The traitors? were those union soldiers who deserted. See, desertion is turning on your own side, and undermining your own side's ability to survive.
But the north survived anyways.

But the number is not "17": it is 373 pardons during Lincoln's two terms.

https://mcarnfinalhist0551.weebly.com/lincolns-pardons.html

 

[Ibleedbrown]

I’ll chime in on this. My take on this is like a lot of things: a work in progress. Art and history are a couple things l stand up for. Good art, bad art, l support its existence even if it ain’t my kinda art. The fondly remembered parts of history and the seedy parts, l think it’s good to study it all, maybe even especially the seedy parts.

So l admittedly had some initial discomfort over this statue removal business because in a sense it’s where art and history collide. I lamented the loss of future opportunities. I had this corny image of a father and young son walking through a park, and there’s a statue of Robert E. Lee.

”Who’s that daddy?”

”That’s Robert E. Lee, a confederate general during the Civil War. We kicked his ass…”

And then your into the whole thing. The Civil War, why it happened, how it went down, what a bayonet is, etc. It’s potentially one of those moments that kickstarts the whole American History baton handoff deal. 

And l know, museums and books and documentaries exist, but not everyone’s big on those. Parks and city squares in the mix widens the potential. 

With that said l had a conversation with someone last year who relayed a point that Woody made above where most of those monuments glorifying the confederacy were erected during reconstruction when the south not only rose again, but also changed the narrative of the Civil War. We don’t often think of art and history being used as ominous reminders of where certain folks stand in society, but in many cases that’s what was happening. Metal and stone expressions communicating the same thing as the white hood and noose. 

So l get it. And ultimately, it’s the individual communities who should have the most say so on these sorts of things. It’s not my place to tell other communities what to do with their monuments. I’m content to simply understand their reasoning. 

[Vambo]

1 hour ago, Ibleedbrown said:

I’ll chime in on this. My take on this is like a lot of things: a work in progress. Art and history are a couple things l stand up for. Good art, bad art, l support its existence even if it ain’t my kinda art. The fondly remembered parts of history and the seedy parts, l think it’s good to study it all, maybe even especially the seedy parts.

So l admittedly had some initial discomfort over this statue removal business because in a sense it’s where art and history collide. I lamented the loss of future opportunities. I had this corny image of a father and young son walking through a park, and there’s a statue of Robert E. Lee.

”Who’s that daddy?”

”That’s Robert E. Lee, a confederate general during the Civil War. We kicked his ass…”

And then your into the whole thing. The Civil War, why it happened, how it went down, what a bayonet is, etc. It’s potentially one of those moments that kickstarts the whole American History baton handoff deal. 

And l know, museums and books and documentaries exist, but not everyone’s big on those. Parks and city squares in the mix widens the potential. 

With that said l had a conversation with someone last year who relayed a point that Woody made above where most of those monuments glorifying the confederacy were erected during reconstruction when the south not only rose again, but also changed the narrative of the Civil War. We don’t often think of art and history being used as ominous reminders of where certain folks stand in society, but in many cases that’s what was happening. Metal and stone expressions communicating the same thing as the white hood and noose. 

So l get it. And ultimately, it’s the individual communities who should have the most say so on these sorts of things. It’s not my place to tell other communities what to do with their monuments. I’m content to simply understand their reasoning. 

I had this corny image of a father and young son walking through a park, and there’s a statue of George Floyd.

”Who’s that daddy?”

"He's a criminal who had a crime record as long as your leg...he was high on fentanyl  and spending counterfeit money when he was kill while being arrested, he also at one point held a gun to a pregnant woman's belly while his friends robbed her home. The Democrats loved him for his great behavior."

Also they praise groups such as Antifa and BLM that burned, looted and killed and worshiped a woman who killed police officers."

"But at least they took down those statues that stood for hundreds of years because they hurt their feeling!"

 

[calfoxwc]

9 minutes ago, Vambo said:

I had this corny image of a father and young son walking through a park, and there’s a statue of George Floyd.

”Who’s that daddy?”

"He's a criminal who had a crime record as long as your leg...he was high on fentanyl  and spending counterfeit money when he was kill while being arrested, he also at one point held a gun to a pregnant woman's belly while his friends robbed her home. The Democrats loved him for his great behavior."

Also they praise groups such as Antifa and BLM that burned, looted and killed and worshiped a woman who killed police officers."

"But at least they took down those statues that stood for hundreds of years because they hurt their feeling!"

 

[Ibleedbrown]

9 hours ago, Vambo said:

"But at least they took down those statues that stood for hundreds of years because they hurt their feeling!"

Our Civil War ended in 1865, so those statues aren’t quite hundreds of years old. You may be thinking of General Lee statues from the Dukes of Hazard, a popular tv show in the 1700s. Oh, and that General Lee was a car. 

In all seriousness, people gotta find a way to make peace with things out of their control. Otherwise they just manufacture misery for themselves.

And l forgot my sports analogy. Imagine if they erected a statue of John Elway in downtown Cleveland 30 years after “the Drive”. Do you think that would be well received? Of course it wouldn’t. What would be the point of that other than an awful reminder of a gut wrenching experience 30 years ago? If you’re a Broncos fan, sure, it’s cool. But if you’re a Browns fan, at the very best its placement is in poor taste. That’s basically much of what went on 100 plus years ago when those statues were put up. So like l said, l get it, but a part of me still laments the loss of future conversations between parents and kids about the Duke Boys and their smokin’ cousin running moonshine in the 1700s.

[Vambo]

48 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Our Civil War ended in 1865, so those statues aren’t quite hundreds of years old. You may be thinking of General Lee statues from the Dukes of Hazard, a popular tv show in the 1700s. Oh, and that General Lee was a car. 

In all seriousness, people gotta find a way to make peace with things out of their control. Otherwise they just manufacture misery for themselves.

And l forgot my sports analogy. Imagine if they erected a statue of John Elway in downtown Cleveland 30 years after “the Drive”. Do you think that would be well received? Of course it wouldn’t. What would be the point of that other than an awful reminder of a gut wrenching experience 30 years ago? If you’re a Broncos fan, sure, it’s cool. But if you’re a Browns fan, at the very best its placement is in poor taste. That’s basically much of what went on 100 plus years ago when those statues were put up. So like l said, l get it, but a part of me still laments the loss of future conversations between parents and kids about the Duke Boys and their smokin’ cousin running moonshine in the 1700s.

Your analogy is off it would more like Cleveland put up a statue of Bernie Kozar and 50 years later someone has hurt feelings for some odd reason...for this to fit your scenario the Robert E Lee statue would have been standing in the North somewhere.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

13 hours ago, Ibleedbrown said:

That’s Robert E. Lee, a confederate general during the Civil War. We kicked his ass…”

Not quite.  As far as casualties go anyway:: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history.

[Ibleedbrown]

32 minutes ago, Vambo said:

Your analogy is off it would more like Cleveland put up a statue of Bernie Kozar and 50 years later someone has hurt feelings for some odd reason...for this to fit your scenario the Robert E Lee statue would have been standing in the North somewhere.

Not if you think about it from the perspective of who “won” the reconstruction period, or rather who benefitted most from it. Few people would argue it was a shit show with the KKK, lynchings, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and it lasted a long time. Something like 10 times longer than the Civil War itself. I suppose from the standpoint of the analogy Cleveland would have had to have created a similar scene where life in Colorado was a shit show for close to 50 years, but stuff like that doesn’t happen in sports. Think of it purely from a standpoint of having a statue of someone you detest in your backyard and you’ll get the gist.

[Ibleedbrown]

28 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Not quite.  As far as casualties go anyway:: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history.

I suppose if you got those statistics in your hip pocket and that’s the angle you wanna go at it, that’s great. That’s the thing though. For any statue that survives this purge, those conversations are going to go how they go depending on who’s having it. Christopher Columbus could be anything from a great and brave Italian explorer who discovered the new world, to the guy who introduced genocide to North America. 

[Vambo]

2 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Not if you think about it from the perspective of who “won” the reconstruction period, or rather who benefitted most from it. Few people would argue it was a shit show with the KKK, lynchings, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and it lasted a long time. Something like 10 times longer than the Civil War itself. I suppose from the standpoint of the analogy Cleveland would have had to have created a similar scene where life in Colorado was a shit show for close to 50 years, but stuff like that doesn’t happen in sports. Think of it purely from a standpoint of having a statue of someone you detest in your backyard and you’ll get the gist.

Well they don't seem to be bothered by having all those racist slave owners in their pockets, they seem to strive to get more of them...

I don't care to hate on inanimate objects, just as my example of  George Floyd I don't think he was a good human being but wouldn't waste time defacing his mural or statue...

[calfoxwc]

2 hours ago, Vambo said:

Your analogy is off it would more like Cleveland put up a statue of Bernie Kozar and 50 years later someone has hurt feelings for some odd reason...for this to fit your scenario the Robert E Lee statue would have been standing in the North somewhere.

liberals don't do accurate analogies - they do feelings. THEIR feelings. accuracy doesn't matter.....

[DieHardBrownsFan]

3 hours ago, Ibleedbrown said:

I suppose if you got those statistics in your hip pocket and that’s the angle you wanna go at it, that’s great. That’s the thing though. For any statue that survives this purge, those conversations are going to go how they go depending on who’s having it. Christopher Columbus could be anything from a great and brave Italian explorer who discovered the new world, to the guy who introduced genocide to North America. 

Well, sure they lost the war but still suffered over 100,000 less casualties.  And won more battles I believe also.  

[cccjwh]

On 8/5/2021 at 12:50 AM, calfoxwc said:

The confederate army may have been called "traitors" but they were NOT TRYING TO OVERTHROW OR UNDERMINE THE GOV, they just wanted to leave it.

  The traitors? were those union soldiers who deserted. See, desertion is turning on your own side, and undermining your own side's ability to survive.
But the north survived anyways.

But the number is not "17": it is 373 pardons during Lincoln's two terms.

https://mcarnfinalhist0551.weebly.com/lincolns-pardons.html

 

Deserters are not charge with treason.  Keep trying to change history so you can love on some traitors.

Sold - President Lincoln Pardons a Leading Confederate Official for Treason | The Raab Collection

Here is one of the actual pardons for TREASON. 

 

[calfoxwc]

that is stupid, even for you. Just because the seller of a document calls it "treason" doesn't mean diddley.

But thanks for all the time it took for the reply - your ignorant posts are almost entertaining - like watching stupid pro wrastlin, knowing it's seriously fake, with the same scripts taking place today that they did when me and my friends in hs watched and laughed at some of the stupidity.