|
BamaD -> RE: Okay, if statues of southern gererals are promoting racism... (8/17/2017 7:00:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Bama, the book, "make no law" is about the freedom of the press, and is about a case in which a city official sued the New York Times for libel after they published an ad critical of Montgomery's brutal response to civil rights protests.
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As for the claims that the anti racist protestors had no permits is wrong, they had permits.
The claim that the south wants to hold on to these statues and memorials as some way to hold on to slavery is also wrong.
These statues are about the men, not the cause.
The memorials to southern men killed in the civil war is about the men, not the cause.
It is no different than the Sioux who continue to honor Crazy Horse, or Sitting Bull, or the Chirachua Apache who continue to venerate Geronimo.
The statue in and of itself, as peon said (god agreeing with him is completely opposite of what I want to do, but...) the statues are of men, who, at one time were heroes to a lost cause. A cause that many in the south did not fight and die for.
The south left the union over the issue of state's rights, slavery was secondary. Yes, the political leaders believed in slavery, hell they were raised with the institution as a part of life.
With every compromise out of congress, they could see the writing on the wall, eventually slavery would end. Only the fools would steadfastly believe it would not.
Jefferson Davis toyed with the idea to slowly abolish slavery in a bid to gain diplomatic support from England and France, both countries had made it clear they would not officially recognize the confederacy as long as slavery was going to be a continued institution.
Of course that did not stop them from supplying arms, ammo and supplies in return for cheap cotton for their mills.
But even the majority of Abolitionists did not see Africans as equal to whites. Oh, slavery was wrong, but as far as them being equal, not so much.
Lee himself saw slavery as a blight on the white race, not because the institution placed a race in bondage, but because it made the white slave owner responsible for a people that he saw inferior.
But, beliefs in slavery aside, Lee was a great general, so was J.E.B Stuart, and Stonewall Jackson.
And Lee did not fight for the south for slavery, he fought for Virginia, it was the reason he turned down command of the Army of the Potomac, and that was why the Secretary of War decided to turn Lee's home into a cemetery.
Everyone of those southern generals fought and served the US Army faithfully, and if nothing else, that should account for something. Lee won victories with a full third of his army tied to the defense of Richmond.
Grant won his victories by the fact he did not care how many men he lost to achieve his objective. He won the war by simple numbers, he had more men to call on than the south, and he wasted lives by the hundreds.
Look at cold harbor.
Grant had 6000 men killed in 20 minutes June 3rd.
During the entire campaign he suffered 50000 casualties to Lee's 18000, but forced Lee to retreat.
All in all, during his tenure as commander of the Army of the Potomac, Grant lost 10 men to every one that Lee lost.
The north won the war because Lincoln made it clear, victory at any cost.
Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was with one goal, push the north to a point of a negotiated peace, even if it meant the Confederacy was lost.
One thing that few even think about today.
General Jubal Early had his entire corpse on the hills over looking Washington DC in the last months of the war, and he could have taken the city, he turned around because, while he could have taken the city, he could not have held it, it would have had to have been burned, and that was something he could not bring himself to do.
After both battles at bull run, the south could have marched into DC and put the city to the torch, and the generals could not, would not even consider such an act.
Twice Lee was in a position to do threaten Washington, and turned his army.
Does it mean anything to these people wanting to destroy these statues that these generals could have destroyed the capital of the United States, and did not?
Regardless of their devotion to their cause, that was something they could not do, and even when they did invade the north, they would not allow their troops to burn those cities they marched through.
Can you say the same for the Union?
How many southern cities did Sherman burn in his march to the sea?
He went so far as to sow salt in the ground to make it impossible to grow crops.
Yet the statues to those generals, who burned, allowed looting, rape and atrocities that made slavery pale in comparison, are sacred.
Intifa did have permits for nearby parks (which was stupid) but they did not have a permit to counter demonstrate in the location of the Nazi demonstration. Don't get me wrong
I think we would be better off if they both disappeared from the face of the earth.
I personally would much rather see monuments to Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph and even Geronimo than Custer, Sherman, and Sheridan.
|
|
|
|
