Confederate Monuments

An obelisk erected in Colfax, Louisiana, in 1921:

“Erected to the memory of the heroes, Stephen Decatur Parish, James West Hadnot, Sidney Harris, who fell in the Colfax riot fighting for white supremacy, April 13, 1873,”

A historical marker emplaced in 1950:

"On this site occurred the Colfax Riot in which 3 white men and 150 negroes were slain. This event on April 13, 1873 marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South."

This is fairly edifying about the broader point of why many of these memorials were erected and what they celebrate.

In the event at issue, black Republicans were besieged in a courthouse, which was set on fire and shot with cannon. Survivors exiting under a white flag were shot, or captured and summarily executed.

But, Jaw, please tell me why they didn't really have it so bad. Or perhaps they had it coming, lacking as they did a permit for the assembly.
 
sturg33 said:
If the confederacy is all about slavery and thus should be removed from everything ex-museum, then so should FDR.

Let's just be consistent, everyone.
Click to expand...

Do find the Yale commission's findings and read them. This argument doesn't get any better with repetition.
 
If you linked to it, I missed it.

But regardless, you seem to like and pick and choose when to apply your moral authority
 
sturg33 said:
If you linked to it, I missed it.

But regardless, you seem to like and pick and choose when to apply your moral authority
Click to expand...

You know, I answered that concern way back at the beginning of this discussion with some thoughts about historical figures, including FDR, MLK, and Ronald Reagan; their contributions to advancing the good, and both their human failings or direct advancement of the bad. If this kind of nuance is too much for you, I apologize.

We don't have to agree on who is most or least worthy of honor. But we SHOULD study history, not myth--across the board--and I submit that we should be incisive and mature enough to look at both context and the balance of the contribution to society while we decide who is worthy of our collective public honor.
 
Honestly, I suspect that any leftist group who is offended by something, you will most often support their cause.

Like I said, 18 months... wanna take that wager?
 
sturg33 said:
Honestly, I suspect that any leftist group who is offended by something, you will most often support their cause.

Like I said, 18 months... wanna take that wager?
Click to expand...

When they came for the white supremacists, I did not speak up, because I was not a white supremacist.
When they came for the slaveowning Founders, I did not speak up, for I was not a slaveowner.
When they came for horny old goat Ben Franklin, I said **** that, because I respect the hell out of his style.
 
Okay, I give up. Undoubtedly everyone who fought for the South did so because they wanted to keep black men in chains and they should be universally derided and scoured from the history books for it.

After all, it isn't like South Carolina threatened to secede in 1828 due to the disproportionate impact on southern states of the Tariff of Abominations. And certainly no southern state had ever rebelled specifically against protective tariffs. It isn't like the South had been paying some crazy percentage, like 75%, of the tariffs.

No, it's pretty clear that the election of Lincoln meant the South had to secede because of his intentions about how to handle slavery, not because of anything he had said about tariffs.

We understand that all of the states seceded over slavery, and waiting until after Fort Sumter had nothing to do with disagreeing over whether the federal government had the right to subjugate the states. All of those Confederate apologists using the term State's Rights means nothing because it is just another word for slavery, never anything else.

In the end they got what was coming to them. Who ever gave them the idea they had the right to secede anyway?
 
Jaw said:
Okay, I give up. Undoubtedly everyone who fought for the South did so because they wanted to keep black men in chains and they should be universally derided and scoured from the history books for it.

After all, it isn't like South Carolina threatened to secede in 1828 due to the disproportionate impact on southern states of the Tariff of Abominations. And certainly no southern state had ever rebelled specifically against protective tariffs. It isn't like the South had been paying some crazy percentage, like 75%, of the tariffs.

No, it's pretty clear that the election of Lincoln meant the South had to secede because of his intentions about how to handle slavery, not because of anything he had said about tariffs.

We understand that all of the states seceded over slavery, and waiting until after Fort Sumter had nothing to do with disagreeing over whether the federal government had the right to subjugate the states. All of those Confederate apologists using the term State's Rights means nothing because it is just another word for slavery, never anything else.

In the end they got what was coming to them. Who ever gave them the idea they had the right to secede anyway?
Click to expand...

Dude... Why are you defending Nazis?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Jaw said:
Okay, I give up. Undoubtedly everyone who fought for the South did so because they wanted to keep black men in chains and they should be universally derided and scoured from the history books for it.

After all, it isn't like South Carolina threatened to secede in 1828 due to the disproportionate impact on southern states of the Tariff of Abominations. And certainly no southern state had ever rebelled specifically against protective tariffs. It isn't like the South had been paying some crazy percentage, like 75%, of the tariffs.

No, it's pretty clear that the election of Lincoln meant the South had to secede because of his intentions about how to handle slavery, not because of anything he had said about tariffs.

We understand that all of the states seceded over slavery, and waiting until after Fort Sumter had nothing to do with disagreeing over whether the federal government had the right to subjugate the states. All of those Confederate apologists using the term State's Rights means nothing because it is just another word for slavery, never anything else.

In the end they got what was coming to them. Who ever gave them the idea they had the right to secede anyway?
Click to expand...

Congrats for getting the whole of the point precisely backwards.
 
I always love when people try to act like/argue that slavery wasn't a reason of the civil war

It must be part of the family story telling time around the bonfire growing up in rural areas of the south or something
 
“Erected to the memory of the heroes, Stephen Decatur Parish, James West Hadnot, Sidney Harris, who fell in the Colfax riot fighting for white supremacy, April 13, 1873,”

Sturg, Jaw, thethe:

What part of this inscription do you disagree with. I mean, I doubt that you think those men were heroes, but why would you not look at someone telling you exactly who they are, and believe them? (h/t Maya Angelou)
 
Jaw said:
Okay, I give up. Undoubtedly everyone who fought for the South did so because they wanted to keep black men in chains and they should be universally derided and scoured from the history books for it.

After all, it isn't like South Carolina threatened to secede in 1828 due to the disproportionate impact on southern states of the Tariff of Abominations. And certainly no southern state had ever rebelled specifically against protective tariffs. It isn't like the South had been paying some crazy percentage, like 75%, of the tariffs.

No, it's pretty clear that the election of Lincoln meant the South had to secede because of his intentions about how to handle slavery, not because of anything he had said about tariffs.

We understand that all of the states seceded over slavery, and waiting until after Fort Sumter had nothing to do with disagreeing over whether the federal government had the right to subjugate the states. All of those Confederate apologists using the term State's Rights means nothing because it is just another word for slavery, never anything else.

In the end they got what was coming to them. Who ever gave them the idea they had the right to secede anyway?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I've misunderstood everything. I now realize it was strictly because of federal government overreach and the folks who organized the protest last weekend were there to protect the honor of the Confederacy, Gen. Lee, their ancestors, etc.

But I need you to clear something up for me. Where do the genocidal racists and anti-semites fit into all of this? They sure looked welcome there by the organizers. Unite the Right.
 
Julio3000 said:
“Erected to the memory of the heroes, Stephen Decatur Parish, James West Hadnot, Sidney Harris, who fell in the Colfax riot fighting for white supremacy, April 13, 1873,”

Sturg, Jaw, thethe:

What part of this inscription do you disagree with. I mean, I doubt that you think those men were heroes, but why would you not look at someone telling you exactly who they are, and believe them? (h/t Maya Angelou)
Click to expand...

If you think that I believe that everyone in the civil war was against the preservation of slavery, then you are mistaken.
 
This is directed at Jaw, Kr and Thethe because they are the ones that seem bothered by it.

I am okay with them assembling to march and defend Lee, if that was their agenda, but since a lot of these White Supremacist are Northerners and raised in the North and their families probably the same have NO connection whatsoever to Lee nor the South and their history. Methinks they wanted to show that white men is superior by chanting that crap whatever they are chanting and I bet 90% saw my black ass if you ask them would they shoot me, beat me, or kick me out of country, or none of the above, the none of the above would barely crack 5%. I should also state that change out me and put any minority in there and it wouldn't raise the needle that much. That is what people on here are decrying is their ideology has not place in this world. How dare they think this land is theirs when they killed a lot of my family black and American Indian and stole it. What if I say take your lily white ass back to Europe from whence you came from, they wouldn't like it that much. That is how much they think, soulless bastards that they are.
 
Julio3000 said:
“Erected to the memory of the heroes, Stephen Decatur Parish, James West Hadnot, Sidney Harris, who fell in the Colfax riot fighting for white supremacy, April 13, 1873,”

Sturg, Jaw, thethe:

What part of this inscription do you disagree with. I mean, I doubt that you think those men were heroes, but why would you not look at someone telling you exactly who they are, and believe them? (h/t Maya Angelou)
Click to expand...

I find that inscription indefensible and would have no problem with the removal of the statue.
There is a big difference, in my mind at least, between many of the people who fought for the Confederacy, and these guys that just wanted to kill black people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top