Hysterical Revisionism: “Sandblast them!”
Why don’t you Groids back off, before you upset the wrong people
and discover how few of you there really are? It would take a week
to rid the Country of your presence. If you upset the wrong people
that is.Please pardon me; I can’t write about this. I am not a Southerner by birth or by disposition, but I am apoplectic at this insult. This is just wrong in every aspect.
Drew has said well what I feel. However .... he also did it without turning the air blue. A very dark hue of blue.
I find it devastating beyond words.I tell ya, I’m about nigged out. Had my fill. Reached my limit. Can I say “the jig is up?”
Can’t do it - In TN the law states that a judge must approve a grave digging up/removal and it must be for a crime investigation or that the grave has become a danger or exposed.
Secondly - in 1958 Congress made all Confederate soldiers - American Veterans - so this mess is expanding into the desecration of American Veterans resting places.
I just keep going back to Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous words to the German intelligentsia on the rise of the Nazi Party:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I just can’t believe that in America we are allowing the idiocracy to take us down the path of the Nazis.
It will be our children and grandchildren who will pay in blood and lives for this nonsense - if Iran doesn’t try to nuke us til we glow before that.
I would only note once again that it is your fine friends in “Law Enforcement” who enable this swill. Or do you REALLY think that they would be doing this if they did not know full well that the Only Ones would protect them?
I see dead pigs, and soon.
Posted by Mark Matis
07/16/2015 at 11:31 AM
Thanks for the full quote WM, I was going to google it.
Now about all those Democrats from Bill Whittles video, how soon can we all figure out how to get that going viral on You tube,Facebook,etc.
If they want to muck up the joint then lets make sure Everyone knows who was behind it ALL.
And it sure wasn’t any Republican or current southerner.
Gosh Drew, did you realize we had this evil Smiley here all this time??
More Grist for the mill, all courtesy of Democrats from the past. Ban em all,bwahahahaha,,,,,,,,,,
Flags are just cloth. What about those Confederate generals, who led rebel armies that left 400,000 Union soldiers dead, now honored by having U.S. Army forts named after them?
Who’s responsible for that?
Her ya go:
Fort Lee (Virginia), named for Confederate General Robert E. Lee on 15 July 1917. The two U.S. senators from Virginia in 1917 then were Claude A. Swanson (D) and Thomas S. Martin (D).
Fort Hood (Texas), named for Confederate General John Bell Hood, officially opened on 18 September 1942. The Texas senators then were W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel (D) and Tom Connally (D).
Fort Polk (Louisiana), named for Confederate General Leonidas Polk, opened in the early 1940s, when Allen J. Ellender (D) and John H. Overton (D) were Louisiana’s U.S. senators.
Fort Benning (Alabama & Georgia), named after pro-secessionist, pro-slavery Confederate General Henry L. Benning, was established in October 1918. The U.S. senators from Alabama were John H. Bankhead (D) and Oscar Underwood (D). The U.S. senators from Georgia were Thomas W. Hardwick (D) and M. Hoke Smith (D).
Fort Gordon (Georgia), named after Confederate General John Brown Gordon, opened July 1917, while John H. Bankhead (D) and Oscar Underwood (D) were Georgia’s U.S. senators.
Fort A.P. Hill (Virginia), named after Confederate General A.P. Hill, opened on June 11, 1941, while Harry F. Byrd (D) and Carter Glass (D) were the state’s U.S. senators.
Fort Pickett (Virginia), named after Confederate General George Pickett (of “Pickett’s Charge”), opened for Virginia National Guard maneuvers in early December 1941. Harry Byrd (D) and Carter Glass (D) were the U.S. senators.
So, among the 12 U.S. senators from 5 states where Confederate generals where honored by having 7 U.S. Army forts named after them, no Republican senators were present. It was all Ds’ doing.Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/why_do_democrats_honor_confederate_generals.html#ixzz3g59EcJz1
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on FacebookThis is a damned disgrace. It pisses me off.
And I’m about as true blue a Unionist as you can get. I have no love for the Treason (as it should be called) or the Confederate flags, and much less for the Confederate cause. I actually agree completely with the the assessment that “The insurrection’s sole purpose was to create a separate nation that would maintain the enslavement of generations of African descendants.” In large part because that is what the Confederate States’ releases at the time said.
But I’m also a Conservative, and a historian.
So for starters, if Georgia- or any other state- wants to continue mythologizing something that probably doesn’t deserve it at THEIR private expense? Well, WHAT’S THE BOTHER? It is THEIR Money. It is THEIR state. And if the sacrifices of those who fought to preserve the Union mean ANYTHING, it is that the Union and the Constitution give states Rights that they can and should use. The NAACP is happy to petition all they want (and I might even support the devils in a few measures). But it will be done Or Not by The Book. And The States.
And that’s just from the pesky, “people should actually be able to use their rights” side of me.
From a historical side, I think there’s something very, very ugly with this mindset. Drew hit the nail right on the head about how totalitarian it is. How much sense would it make if we tried to destroy the memory and public markers of everybody who fought and lost (every Britishman or Loyalist who fought the Revolution? Or the decades of Britishmen prior at a time when the Colonies were British)?
That would be disturbing. And this is the same. Literally trying to destroy parts of history just because it offends you, to the point where even the dead cannot escape. That is..something else. Even Barry’s own INDONESIA doesn’t do this crap to itself.
And make no mistake about it, the Confederacy and Antebellum South were horrible periods in our nation’s history.
But they WERE periods in our nation’s history, and vitally important ones.
The leader of our fight for independence and the first POTUS was a Southern slaveholder. Our Third President, writer of the Declaration of Independence, and framer of the Constitution was a Southern Slaveholder. Virginia was our largest and most populous state at the time of Bunker Hill. A major drive for our expansion across the continent was the slaveholding South’s need for fresh land. All of this and more helped make us- the US- who we are today, for GOOD as WELL as bad.
It is a Part Of US that cannot just be sandblasted away. The Confederate leadership tried and FAILED. Why let someone else try it again?
Also, I want to emphasize something I found especially retarded.
“The heritage we should be celebrating is the U.S. heritage. We’re not a separate nation,”
Of ALL the justifications he could have give- some of which I might’ve even been sympathetic to- he had to pick this?
Newsflash. We Do celebrate separate nations. Columbus Day is still a Holiday, even though we are far more of a separate nation from Spain or the Republic of Genoa than we were from South Carolina.
We do it because we believe that those nations- and people affiliated with them- did play a major role in our heritage. For both good and evil. So why not cover a major effort by treasonous American citizens that played a major role in where our nation is?
Rose said in a phone interview with The Times on Tuesday that “symbols demonstrate people’s mindset. They mean something. There are monuments all over the South… that were erected to demonstrate and celebrate white supremacy.”
Or MAYBE- just MAAAYBE- it has something to do with how Georgia got ripped a new arsehole in the Civil War, and people wanted to memorialize their dead, those who led them, and the destruction?
Yes, granted. In a cause that was anchored on White Supremacy. But so what? Do we go out of our way to vilify every single German Soldier who had their house caved in by Allied bombers or was conscripted into the Wehrmacht because they fought to support a cause anchored on White Supremacy and Far Worse Things?
Even that comparison does a disservice to the Confederacy. While I am one of the most vocal and bitter critics of it you will find, I will admit it was Not Nazi Germany. It was repressive, racist, and corrupt, sure. But it was not totalitarian or genocidal.
I do not justify or defend Georgia’s choice to side with traitors. I believe Sherman’s handling of the situation was quite appropriate and will be the first to defend him.
But this is beyond the “not commemorating slavery” fig leaf; this monstrously spiteful. It is trying to remove Georgia’s ability to commemorate Its’ War. Its’ Suffering. Its’ Dead. And why they did it (both good and evil). And THAT is inhuman.
Yes, the Confederate Battle Flag served as a standard for very evil causes.
Yes, William Bedford Forrest was- by any account- a massively racist war criminal who founded the KKK (though he BROKE with them when they became a terrorist outfit because he felt they should struggle peacefully… how MLK of him?).
Yes, Jackson and Lee and Davis caused this nation grief in ways that cannot be overlooked.
But that DOES NOT justify all this.
NOTHING could.
“History reminds us that despite the hero status accorded to Robert E. Lee, the West Point educated Lee was a traitor who led the military effort of the breakaway states, including Georgia.”
Here’s the thing.
Traitor to who?
Lee was one of the moderates (as was Jackson and Davis, ironically). He despised the cause the Confederacy was created for. He was a decorated American hero. And by all accounts he was a brilliant and noble commander and person to enemy and ally alike.
But he was forced to decide between siding with committing treason against the US or committing treason against Virginia.
He chose the former. I believe he chose wrong. But he did it because he believed Virginia was his country; his homeland. Sandblasting that issue does nobody any good. And the mere fact that people feel inclined to do it says something very disturbing about how America is being conceived of.
On a lighter note.... if anyone’s interested, here’s a link where you can download one of the greatest Civil War strategy games ever made. It’s a fair bit to chew off, but it is about as deep as you could ask for. Hope you guys enjoy.
Posted by Turtler
07/16/2015 at 07:00 PM
I thought the money for the Stone Mountain Memorial was raised privately....
Posted by TimboToo
07/17/2015 at 02:59 AM
It doesn’t matter, TimboToo. All that matters is that it can be SEEN by someone who might be offended. And that potential offendee is a Preferred Species. There IS NO ”Rule of Law”.
And do note that before long it won’t even matter if it can be seen…
Posted by Mark Matis
07/17/2015 at 06:52 AM
Further info:
The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery. We’ll let Lincoln speak for himself:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln
On the Emancipation Proclamation:
“I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” A. Lincoln
And, as Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, said of the Emancipation:
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
The Emancipation only included those slaves held in the South, not the states loyal to the North.
Now, let’s get to the real reason why the South seceded:
Throughout most of our history in the USA, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. And since the South exported/imported 80 percent of the nations goods, the South payed the brunt of feeding the North. To top that off, Lincoln and congress, made up of mostly Northerners, passed the Morrill Tariff Act, which raised import taxes on the South from 20 percent, to 40 percent. How much of that tax revenue do you think went back South, rather than being spent almost entirely on the North?
And by the way, how about the overwhelming 66% vote by the Northern controlled U. S. Congress on the Northern Permanent Slavery Amendment?
The fact is folks, Lincoln didn’t give a damn about slavery, both in the North and the South. Slavery BECAME politically expedient to him and the Northern industrialists (and to appease Europe) to bring back the South into the Union… after all, what politician in his right mind would let 75 percent of it revenue go?
So now we have SJW’s using the flag as a politically expediently tool to demonize, based on lies and ignorance, to destroy an American culture.
And they will not stop until everything that is good in America, your freedom and liberty, is under the thumb of their god.
Lifted verbatim from a post by “Curtis” of https://mojavedesertpatriot.wordpress.com/ who posted it to https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/buppert-american-isis-the-government-war-on-the-confederacy/
Posted by Mark Matis
07/17/2015 at 02:30 PM
Turtler ... Traitor a pretty strong word but even you note that Lee thought of himself as a Virginian. Which I know you know was typical of the times. PPl thought of themselves more as citizens of their home state.
I have great respect for you as I am certain you know. But I think you’re especially hard on the CSA here. Yes, slavery was an issue for their congress and the President.
Lee did not believe in slavery for reasons of economy. That is, he did not believe a slave economy was viable long term and had the CSA won, he surely would have become the next president, and he would have ended slavery for that reason.I have said before and I believe it to be valid.
No way would you get a million brave young southern boys to fight a bloody war and risk life and limb, just so a privileged few could own slaves. They would never have volunteered to fight on behalf of the aristocracy. Who btw did not even trust their army to fight to begin with.There were so many differences between the north and South a split was natural. From the food they ate to their language, a somewhat different form of English altogether. They really had less in common than one would imagine.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the Mencken quote on the Gettysburg Address so I won’t reprint it here. But I think Mencken was right.
@Mark Matis
I stopped reading after the repetition of the old slur, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
Because it’s factually not true. On a very strategic level. Armed forces associated with the Confederate Government were the ones who committed the aggression.
Looking at the actual definition of the term, from Mariam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression
Full Definition of AGGRESSION
1
: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2
: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3
: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustrationThe truth of the matter is that armed outfits associated with the fledgling Confederate government (and especially the secessionist State Government of South Carolina) were the ones to fit those descriptions, by attacking not only Federal installations and people without due cause (most famously at Fort Sumter) but also other states.
The Confederacy made the choice to invade neutral Kentucky even though Lincoln chose not to (even though it was essentially his home state).
While on a strategic and tactical level the Union was on the offensive for most of the war, it was the South that was the Aggressor. This doesn’t have to be a political problem. It’s just looking at the military facts on the ground without regard to moral or political issues (which can come later).
Secondly: using Lincoln is technically true, but makes no difference. Yes, he was somewhat racist himself and not especially fond of Blacks (though by the standards of the day he was rather good). Yes, he viewed his war as mostly to keep the Union intact and the legally elected government in power (and I think he was right to do so).
But this again ignores the key point. Lincoln didn’t start the war.He wasn’t even in office at the time, since it started during the (very late) Lame Duck term of his predecessor, James Buchanan. Those who did start the war defined what the war was about far more than he did. And so this is a fig leaf.
So let us look at the cornerstone of the Confederacy. The stated reason for its’ existence, the reason why it justified drawing the sword first.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
You will see that in Every Single State Declaration of Secession, those doing so identified their cause with slavery. I could get quotes if need be. Including those that came in years before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And even before Lincoln assumed the role of Presidency (in the case of the “fireeaters” like South Carolina).
They don’t make a great deal of mention of Tariffs like the alternative idea is (and why would they; they weren’t that important except to the handful of Confederate states with maritime industry and export worth a damn like Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana). To the leaders of the Confederate government, it was about Slavery first and foremost. And every single Confederate soldier, officer, spy, and servant fought under the justifications of these.
The fact that they did so even when several slave states (like Maryland) remained loyal (as it turned out) says something about their identification. And this is why I still hold that focusing on Lincoln and his quotes are fig leafs.
And finally, the idea that Lincoln didn’t care about slavery until it was convenient requires a massive misreading of his personality. He made a massive stink about it for years on end and viewed it as a great evil. He just didn’t define it about slavery (ironically well after the Confederacy he was fighting defined it as) because he believed his role of President was above all to preserve and represent the Union, Slave and Free. And he believed keeping the Loyalist slave states in the Union was more important than his personal opinion.
@peiper
“Traitor a pretty strong word “
Indeed it is, but I feel it is justified; moreso for the Confederacy as a whole than for Lee in particular.
After all, the definition is.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traitor
1
: one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2
: one who commits treasonThe State Governments that seceded to form the Confederacy- even if everybody else we give the benefit of the doubt- were guilty of Treason. They betrayed the laws and agreements they had under the Union, not just in seceeding over a fair (though convoluted) election but from illegally attacking the private property of “foreign” states (the Federal government, by this logic) and citizens (other Americans).
The bottom line is that if we assume it is an American Rebel movement, it is one that rose up against a freely elected government for bad reasons. If we accept the Confederacy was an independent nation, its’ conduct towards the US was perfidious beyond belief and an affront to the mores of international diplomacy and war.
We can give the individual citizens of the rebel states a pass for the sake of the argument, again because of the divided loyalty issue and how they were equally citizens of the nation and the states. But the state governments that acted out cannot.
I have great respect for you as I am certain you know.
I know, and I appreciate it.
But I think you’re especially hard on the CSA here.
I can understand that, and like I said; I don’t want to paint them as all monsters or what have you. I do believe it- or at least the cause that it was fought for (which were first and foremost slavery, and the right of some states to betray their legal obligations through armed conflict) were evil. But they weren’t Nazis with Southern accents. They weren’t as bad as Stalin, they weren’t as bad as Hitler; they weren’t even as bad as Bismark or Wilhelm or the Tsars.
I still believe that leaves plenty of room for them to be “pretty bad”, though.
Yes, slavery was an issue for their congress and the President.
Amongst others.
Lee did not believe in slavery for reasons of economy. That is, he did not believe a slave economy was viable long term
Indeed. And he was almost certainly correct.
and had the CSA won, he surely would have become the next president, and he would have ended slavery for that reason.
Ne he wouldn’t have. Mostly because it was functionally impossible for him to do so under the Confederate constitution.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Here’s some parts.
(Article I, Section 9) (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
(Article IV) Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Slavery was literally written in to the Confederate Constitution as inalienably as the right to free speech or other ones.
So… let’s take a look at what it would take to amend the Confederate Constitution.
Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.
In other words, it would’ve required two out of every three Confederate states to agree to an amendment of anything, even the fine print phrasing of something. Let alone the cause that they identified most strongly with their independence.
Suffice it to say, Lee was not going to get 2/3rds agreement to end slavery. Not legally.
The only possible way he could have gotten it was to either play off of the Confederacy’s more decentralized nature to force it through locally, or some kind of coup or armed takeover.
So in other words, the stage is set either for Confederate slavery into the distant future, or for the Confederacy to become this kind of extralegal caudillo state like so much of Latin America had become.
I have said before and I believe it to be valid.
No way would you get a million brave young southern boys to fight a bloody war and risk life and limb, just so a privileged few could own slaves. They would never have volunteered to fight on behalf of the aristocracy.The problem is twofold.
For one, Aristocracies have gotten millions to fight on even thinner reasons before (just ask the Plantagenants and the Valois when they went at each other for 300 some years before 1453).
And for two: it wasn’t *just* so a privileged few could own slaves. It was so that the fundamental social order of the entire Antebellum South didn’t collapse utterly. Which is especially important when you understand that they believed it was essential for a lot of things, up to and including preventing the entire South from degenerating into something like what Philly is now.
I could go on. But this gives a decent overview of it. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
Obviously, that wasn’t the motive every Southerner fought for (not everybody drank the kool aid- see Lee- and not everybody had the ability to care, what with Bluecoats tearing through the countryside...e tc). But it was enough. And the fact that the Slavery aristocracy was the cornerstone holding the entire pyramid they were all on together was a major reason why they saw it as important.
Who btw did not even trust their army to fight to begin with.
Yes and no. They trusted them well enough to exempt large slaveholders form the draft (to keep an eye on the restive fifth column), and just years before in Mexico they had plenty of reason to believe they would. Though unsurprisingly there was a lot of tension between the big owners and the bread and butter smallholders that made up the majority of the South.
There were so many differences between the north and South a split was natural. From the food they ate to their language, a somewhat different form of English altogether. They really had less in common than one would imagine.
Agreed. It’s just that those differences (even including slavery) had existed since the start of the Union (especially with New England abolishing slavery defacto and often dejure not long after the Revolution; fat chance the Left will admit that...). And they had endured. Like I said, much of our nation’s early leadership came from the South.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the Mencken quote on the Gettysburg Address so I won’t reprint it here. But I think Mencken was right.
I think Mencken is an overblown, sour grapes Leftist idiot. Whose logic and pithy quotes of alleged “wisdom” don’t survive much analysis.
I think he is wrong in general, and I think he is wrong now.
Since you didn’t reprint it, I’ll save you the bother and reprint what is perhaps the moneyquote here.
The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
This is the kind of tortured logic I often find in Confederate apologism. And for that matter Leftist diatribes. That terms like “self-determination” and “the right of their people to govern themselves” can be defined as is convenient.
The simple fact of the matter is that it’s not true on a most basic level. The key cornerstone of self-determination and government by the people for the people is elections and civil rights.
The nation went to the polls in 1860 (in one of the most dysfunctional free elections imaginable). It was a true case of self-determination even compared to elections today from how wild and free it was.It was a true case of self-determination even compared to elections today from how wild and free it was. And they elected Abraham Lincoln (by a narrow vote) to be the government by the people. for the people. In effect, they “self-determined” it like they had for Buchanan years earlier.
The entire Confederate cause was a rejection of self-determination unless it suited their interests. They rejected the free and fair (if strange) election of Lincoln. They rejected the idea that the people of a state should have a right to vote on issues such as slavery (hence why some of the people they cracked down on harshest were white freesoilers) as you can see in the constitution they drew up.
I don’t have to get in to the obvious soft targets about how they rejected the idea that slaves were part of “the people” or had a right to govern themselves. The truth is if anything even more damning, because they were happy rejecting the idea of free, white males like themselves having the rights to govern themselves or do anything that went against Their interests.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 03:03 PM
Bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But at least Lincoln is burning in hell where he so truly belongs.
Posted by Mark Matis
07/18/2015 at 03:16 PM
Bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Then prove it.
Because two line attempts at being pithy aren’t going to cut it.
But at least Lincoln is burning in hell where he so truly belongs.
Ah yes, how dare he.
He wanted to feed some soldiers caught in an ambiguous (at best) legal situation, and opposed slavery and arbitrary fracturing of the Union and Constitution.
Truly a horrible human being.
Posted by Turtler
07/18/2015 at 08:04 PM
07/16/2015 at 09:45 AM
