Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Obama asked not to lay a wreath on the Confederate Veterans memorial.

1111214161720

Posts

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »

    Lee is deified as a personification of all that was better in the Confederacy. He is always portrayed as completely honorable, brilliant, loyal, loved by all and classy. Those he fought against, especially Grant, are portrayed negatively, such as Grant being painted as the drunk Butcher who simply swallowed Lee up with greater numbers when he was at least as brilliant as Lee. Lee supposedly had no choice because his state seceded and its generally brushed aside that he was a slave owner who thought the black race must be kept enslaved and that they should be thankful to the burden the white race was taking on in lifting them up through enslavement.

    You also forget that Lee was against secession, supported the Union after the war, and worked towards a smooth integration with the North.

    You seem to forget that he's a very popular figure in the North as well, which I suppose doesn't jive with current rhetoric.
    Except he fought to support secession, didn't have much of a choice unless he wanted to be hung, didn't and wasn't. That's part of the revisionism.

    Lee resigned before Virginia even seceded and gave a middle state answer on secession. He knew secession would result in war and didn't want that but he still supported it because ultimately he shared the Confederate philosophy.
    Lee 1861 wrote:
    I think of the occupants of both, very often, and hope, some day, to see them again. I may have the opportunity soon ; for, if the Union is dissolved, I shall return to Virginia to share the fortune of my people. But before so great a calamity befalls the country, I hope all honorable means of maintaining the Constitution and the equal rights of the people will be first exhausted. Tell your father he must not allow Maryland to be tacked on to South Carolina, before the just demands of the South have been fairly presented to the North and rejected. Then, if the rights guarantied by the Constitution are denied us, and the citizens of one portion of the country are granted privileges not extended to the other, we can, with a clear conscience, separate. I am for maintaining all our rights, not for abandoning all for the sake of one. Our national rights, liberty at home and security abroad, our lands, navy, forts, dockyards, arsenals and institutions of every kind. It will result in war, I know — fierce, bloody war. But so will secession, for it is revolution and war at last, and cannot be otherwise, and we might as well look at it in its true character. There is a long message, A , for your father, and a grave one, which I had not

    intended to put in my letter to you, but it is a subject on which my serious thoughts often turn ; for, as an American citizen, I prize my government and country highly, and there is no sacrifice I am not willing to make for their preservation, save that of honor. I trust there is wisdom and patriotism enough in the country to save them, for I cannot anticipate so great a calamity to the nation as the dissolution of the Union."

    Lee supported Andrew Johnson's pro-Confederate plan but not the Republican plan that included equal rights for the freedmen. He wanted things to go back the way they were, even endorsing a candidate against Grant by signing a letter that said "The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes and would oppress them, if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness" and expressing that he was "opposed to any system of laws that would place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race. But this opposition springs from no feeling of enmity, but from a deep-seated conviction that, at present, the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power." He was of the Southern aristocracy and was covering his own ass, not only out of self-interest but self-preservation as he was not pardoned and could have been prosecuted for treason and oath-breaking. In the year of his death, only 5 years after the War he said if he knew what was coming he would never have surrendered.

    He was not popular in the North, as common sense should tell you.
    Sheep wrote: »
    The Confederate soldiers didn't fight for the US. They fought against the US and as such should not be honored as US war dead, equal to those who fought and died for rather than against this country.

    I'm glad no one is taking you seriously.

    So just to be clear, despite the fact that the Confederate soldiers were fighting against the United States you believe they should be honored equally with those who fought for the United States by the President of the United States on the day set aside to honor those who gave their lives in service of the United States.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Except he fought to support secession, didn't have much of a choice unless he wanted to be hung, didn't and wasn't. That's part of the revisionism.

    Uh, no. He fought to support his home state. He was a career military man. He denounced the secession as a "revolution".
    Lee wrote:
    "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."

    He willfully took command of Confederate troops to support his state.

    You're at the point of just spouting off bullshit now.
    Lee supported Andrew Johnson's pro-Confederate plan but not the Republican plan that included equal rights for the freedmen.

    That's because the Republican plan would have stripped the rights of every ex Confederate in the country.

    Of course he wouldn't support that.
    Lee supported Andrew Johnson's pro-Confederate plan but not the Republican plan that included equal rights for the freedmen. He wanted things to go back the way they were, even endorsing a candidate against Grant by signing a letter that said "The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes and would oppress them, if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness" and expressing that he was "opposed to any system of laws that would place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race. But this opposition springs from no feeling of enmity, but from a deep-seated conviction that, at present, the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power."

    Most politicians had this point of view. Northern or Southern.
    He was of the Southern aristocracy and was covering his own ass, not only out of self-interest but self-preservation as he was not pardoned and could have been prosecuted for treason and oath-breaking. In the year of his death, only 5 years after the War he said if he knew what was coming he would never have surrendered.

    His quote of "dying with sword in hand" was due to seeing Federal troops control the Southern way of life post Civil War. It wasn't out of fear that he'd be tried for Treason.
    So just to be clear, despite the fact that the Confederate soldiers were fighting against the United States you believe they should be honored equally with those who fought for the United States by the President of the United States on the day set aside to honor those who gave their lives in service of the United States.

    No American willing to go to war to die for his home should be forgotten, regardless of the conflict.
    Dyscord wrote: »
    If you can't see the line to be drawn between wars (even the ones we regret) against foreign enemies with the support of the legitimately elected government and a rebellion against that same government, then we might as well stop having a conversation on the subject at all.

    I don't see much difference between asshole politicians getting the working class killed in either instance.
    That being said it gets to another point I wanted to make. In the Vietnam example, we don't celebrate the cause of the war, and we even tacitly acknowledge that it was a mistake. As I posted earlier in the thread, the Vietnam war memorial manages to "honor" the soldiers who died in Vietnam without glorifying or making excuses for the reasons they died there.

    The Confederate memorial is the exact opposite; it is every bit a glorification of the south's fight for the euphemistic "freedom" to own slaves, and is portrayed in exactly that way by the people who erected it and continue to support it. It isn't a solemn recognition of a national tragedy, it's a monument to what the creators apparently regard as a heroic lost cause. That as much as anything is what is being "honored" by laying a wreath there.
    "Not for fame or reward. Not for place or for rank. Not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty as they understood it. These men suffered all. Sacrificed all. Dared all. And died."

    Yeah.

    Fuck those guys.

    :|

    Remember, in 1866 States were more closely tied to identity than the entire country. I think the idea that there are men willing and able to defend their homeland is something to be proud of.

    From the Arlington cemetary website:
    This effort on behalf of the Confederate dead provides yet another avenue for studying sectional reconciliation in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By focusing on the valorous deeds of the dead, living veterans from both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line united in celebration of the common soldier.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    You seem to forget that he's a very popular figure in the North as well, which I suppose doesn't jive with current rhetoric.
    Robert E. Lee is popular in the North?

    He pretty much bitchslapped every ex Confederate that got hotheaded and approached relations with the North with less than gracious demeanor.

    I would say we keep "popular" in relative terms. Where as Jefferson Davis is pretty much vilified, Lee is known for his demeanor and stature.
    This is a pretty flimsy justification.

    I didn't know much justification was needed to appreciate a dead American soldier, regardless of conflict.

    I mean, if we're gonna split hairs over the nature of the conflict, then we might as well denounce every American soldier, drafted or volunteer, that participated in a war that wasn't WWII.

    I'm not gonna tell my dad he's a dickface for serving in Vietnam. Nor my grand father for serving in Korea.

    Or all of my friends currently on tour, or back from, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The difference is that the Vietnam War was retarded. The Civil War was outright evil.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I sort of regret restarting this argument, but this is too ridiculous to let go.
    I agree, but from my point of view, so is your refusal to honor America citizens whose deaths were a means to an end to preserve our union. We shall soon have National and Federal Tributes to the victims of slavery, the Native Americans, and the Japanese Internment, honoring the deaths of confederate soldiers seems in line with that logic.

    Their deaths weren't "a means to an end to preserve our union." There isn't a default price in blood the union demands from it's people to continue existing. If they had it their way, in fact, the union would have ceased to exist. Implying that they died as part of some pre-ordained plan to preserve the union is the worst kind of revisionism.

    As to the victims of slavery, the native americans and interned japanese, we are honoring them as a means of paying partial penance for the massive crime the united states committed against them. Which is worthwhile, and not at all analogous to a discussion of the civil war.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    That being said it gets to another point I wanted to make. In the Vietnam example, we don't celebrate the cause of the war, and we even tacitly acknowledge that it was a mistake. As I posted earlier in the thread, the Vietnam war memorial manages to "honor" the soldiers who died in Vietnam without glorifying or making excuses for the reasons they died there.

    The Confederate memorial is the exact opposite; it is every bit a glorification of the south's fight for the euphemistic "freedom" to own slaves, and is portrayed in exactly that way by the people who erected it and continue to support it. It isn't a solemn recognition of a national tragedy, it's a monument to what the creators apparently regard as a heroic lost cause. That as much as anything is what is being "honored" by laying a wreath there.
    "Not for fame or reward. Not for place or for rank. Not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty as they understood it. These men suffered all. Sacrificed all. Dared all. And died."

    Yeah.

    Fuck those guys.

    :|

    You going to quote the inscription on the other side of the monument, or just continue being silly?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    So have we gotten to the 'so you think the terrorists who crashed the planes on 9/11 should be honored?' silliness yet?

    It's a goddamn wreath, that's it. More than a few of those who fought had families on the other side, so yeah while the South was a real dumbass attempt to keep a shitty institution alive those retards that joined it were still our retards by blood. So they get a little remembrance and we also remember through discussion how wrong they were.

    And no the North wasn't perfect, but neither is any country but if you were to ask a slave whether he'd rather be an honest to goodness slave or part of the truck system, I'm betting he'd choose the latter.

    Equality is a process, and sometimes it can be slow as fuck but when you have a chance to gain that inch, that one single atom of difference between slave and free, it makes all the difference in the world.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The difference is that the Vietnam War was retarded. The Civil War was outright evil.

    War is evil, regardless. People die horribly. Dropping Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam is just as horrible as the atrocities during the Civil War.
    Dyscord wrote: »
    You going to quote the inscription on the other side of the monument, or just continue being silly?

    You referring to "To our dead heroes"?

    QlBGc.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    to the latin inscription, yes

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The difference is that the Vietnam War was retarded. The Civil War was outright evil.

    War is evil, regardless. People die horribly. Dropping Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam is just as horrible as the atrocities during the Civil War.

    But you know what war isn't? Promoting slavery. The Vietnam War was a dumb blunder is which many people died, but which was started on idealistic grounds. The civil war was fought so that people could get rich off the blood of others.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    to the latin inscription, yes

    I'll save him the trouble
    "Victrix Causa Diis Placuit Sed Victa Caton."
    Translation
    "The victorious cause was pleasing to the Gods, but the lost cause to Cato."

    So yeah, fuck those guys.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    to the latin inscription, yes

    I'll save him the trouble
    "Victrix Causa Diis Placuit Sed Victa Caton."
    Translation
    "The victorious cause was pleasing to the Gods, but the lost cause to Cato."

    So yeah, fuck those guys.

    So what the hell does that quote mean?

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Cato was a soldier who fought against the caesar's imperial rome. Upon learning that several of his companions had been killed by the imperial army and that his cause was lost, he chose suicide over a life under the imperial bootheel.

    The implication is that the south fought for the great lost cause of freedom against tyranny, with the north as the imperial aggressor. This is particularly ironic given the slavery issue.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Except he fought to support secession, didn't have much of a choice unless he wanted to be hung, didn't and wasn't. That's part of the revisionism.

    Uh, no. He fought to support his home state. He was a career military man. He denounced the secession as a "revolution".
    Lee wrote:
    "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."

    He willfully took command of Confederate troops to support his state.

    You're at the point of just spouting off bullshit now.
    Lee supported Andrew Johnson's pro-Confederate plan but not the Republican plan that included equal rights for the freedmen.

    That's because the Republican plan would have stripped the rights of every ex Confederate in the country.

    Of course he wouldn't support that.
    Lee supported Andrew Johnson's pro-Confederate plan but not the Republican plan that included equal rights for the freedmen. He wanted things to go back the way they were, even endorsing a candidate against Grant by signing a letter that said "The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes and would oppress them, if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness" and expressing that he was "opposed to any system of laws that would place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race. But this opposition springs from no feeling of enmity, but from a deep-seated conviction that, at present, the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power."

    Most politicians had this point of view. Northern or Southern.
    He was of the Southern aristocracy and was covering his own ass, not only out of self-interest but self-preservation as he was not pardoned and could have been prosecuted for treason and oath-breaking. In the year of his death, only 5 years after the War he said if he knew what was coming he would never have surrendered.

    His quote of "dying with sword in hand" was due to seeing Federal troops control the Southern way of life post Civil War. It wasn't out of fear that he'd be tried for Treason.

    Except he clearly did bear arms against the Union and did support secession as the quoted portion you left out made clear. You're also quoting from "A Soldier's Reminiscences in Peace and War," from an anecdote of someone who didn't know Lee well in a book written in the 1880s, likely apocryphal I quoted from his own hand.

    "Most" politicians were for the 14th Amendment. Its bullshit revisionist that the North and South were equally racist. Indeed, there's little doubt that Republicans wanted blacks to vote if only because it was a sure voting block.

    And yes Lee didn't like that blacks were able to vote and hold office and thus the great conciliatory leader who lived less than a half dozen years after the war managed to declare he wished he had never surrendered and that there should be no consequences between smoothing everything over (what did he do again?).

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Cato was a soldier who fought against the caesar's imperial rome. Upon learning that several of his companions had been killed by the imperial army and that his cause was lost, he chose suicide over a life under the imperial bootheel.

    The implication is that the south fought for the great lost cause of freedom against tyranny, with the north as the imperial aggressor. This is particularly ironic given the slavery issue.

    But if the victorious cause was pleasing to the Gods...er God...

    Huh.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    The Confederate soldiers didn't fight for the US. They fought against the US and as such should not be honored as US war dead, equal to those who fought and died for rather than against this country.

    I'm glad no one is taking you seriously.

    So just to be clear, despite the fact that the Confederate soldiers were fighting against the United States you believe they should be honored equally with those who fought for the United States by the President of the United States on the day set aside to honor those who gave their lives in service of the United States.

    stop it with this stupid shit.

    the confederacy did not fight against the united states because it was still a part of the united states. you do not lose your citizenship because you fought one one side of the civil war or the other. you don't lose your citizenship by signing a piece of paper that says "i am now a citizen of the confederacy". you don't lose your citizenship by commiting high treason and never being charged for it. they were still american citizens up and until that citizenship is revoked.

    the civil war was the north vs the south NOT the united states vs foreign invaders of united states soil.

    if you want to not honor them, thats fine, thats your right. you're being ignorant and pedantic about it but its your right. that doesn't change the fact that they were americans that died in a war and should be honored for their sacrifice AS SOLDIERS.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Except he clearly did bear arms against the Union and did support secession as the quoted portion you left out made clear. You're also quoting from "A Soldier's Reminiscences in Peace and War," from an anecdote of someone who didn't know Lee well in a book written in the 1880s, likely apocryphal I quoted from his own hand.

    His choice was against or for his homeland. He chose his homeland.

    And I'm quoting from R E Lee: A biography
    "Most" politicians were for the 14th Amendment. Its bullshit revisionist that the North and South were equally racist. Indeed, there's little doubt that Republicans wanted blacks to vote if only because it was a sure voting block.

    Ah, so it's okay to be racist if you're being nice. Charlie Chan isn't racist! Look at how nice that guy is!
    And yes Lee didn't like that blacks were able to vote and hold office and thus the great conciliatory leader who lived less than a half dozen years after the war managed to declare he wished he had never surrendered and that there should be no consequences between smoothing everything over (what did he do again?).

    Uh, no. Again, you're wrong in why he regretted surrendering.

    But I don't even expect you to as much care about being factual. It's pretty apparent you just want to bitch about the South.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The difference is that the Vietnam War was retarded. The Civil War was outright evil.

    War is evil, regardless. People die horribly. Dropping Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam is just as horrible as the atrocities during the Civil War.

    But you know what war isn't? Promoting slavery. The Vietnam War was a dumb blunder is which many people died, but which was started on idealistic grounds. The civil war was fought so that people could get rich off the blood of others.

    Wars are fought for power and money. The Civil War is no different.
    So yeah, fuck those guys.

    Such contempt for your fellow countrymen. That must suck for you. You'll grow out of it.

    Obama, apparently, isn't too worked up about it.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The difference is that the Vietnam War was retarded. The Civil War was outright evil.

    War is evil, regardless. People die horribly. Dropping Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam is just as horrible as the atrocities during the Civil War.

    But you know what war isn't? Promoting slavery. The Vietnam War was a dumb blunder is which many people died, but which was started on idealistic grounds. The civil war was fought so that people could get rich off the blood of others.

    Wars are fought for power and money. The Civil War is no different.

    Except the civil war was fought over money from the disenfranchisement of the basic human rights of an entire race. Vietnam was fought over which economic system was more fair to the common man.
    So yeah, fuck those guys.

    Such contempt for your fellow countrymen. That must suck for you. You'll grow out of it.

    Obama, apparently, isn't too worked up about it.

    I suppose that means you send wreaths to serial rapists, provided that they're American.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Anyway the whole idea postwar was reconstruction and reconciliation as far as I know and Obama has shown to have similar feelings.

    PantsB the nation for the most part has let go of the anger without forgetting the fact that the South supported slavery, shouldn't you too?

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    So yeah, fuck those guys.

    Such contempt for your fellow countrymen. That must suck for you. You'll grow out of it.

    Here's a hint: the soldiers who fought in the civil war are dead. They don't care what we think of them.

    "Honoring" the dead is something the living do, for the benefit of other living people. I don't see why people who apparently continue to think that the south's cause was just and righteous are worth paying any mind to at all.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    you do not lose your citizenship because you fought one one side of the civil war or the other. you don't lose your citizenship by signing a piece of paper that says "i am now a citizen of the confederacy". you don't lose your citizenship by commiting high treason and never being charged for it. they were still american citizens up and until that citizenship is revoked.

    As has been pointed out, this is only true because Lincoln issued a blanket pardon to confederates below command rank.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I suppose that means you send wreaths to serial rapists, provided that they're American.

    Ooo. Wow. Grasping at straws already?
    "Honoring" the dead is something the living do, for the benefit of other living people. I don't see why people who apparently continue to think that the south's cause was just and righteous are worth paying any mind to at all.

    So bravery, valor and patriotism to your home isn't a value to instill in others?

    Hmmm.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    PantsB the nation for the most part has let go of the anger without forgetting the fact that the South supported slavery, shouldn't you too?

    There are many people in the south that I don't think have let it go, at all.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I suppose that means you send wreaths to serial rapists, provided that they're American.

    Ooo. Wow. Grasping at straws already?
    "Honoring" the dead is something the living do, for the benefit of other living people. I don't see why people who apparently continue to think that the south's cause was just and righteous are worth paying any mind to at all.

    So bravery, valor and patriotism to your home isn't a value to instill in others?

    Hmmm.

    meh, continue dodging the point all you like

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    you do not lose your citizenship because you fought one one side of the civil war or the other. you don't lose your citizenship by signing a piece of paper that says "i am now a citizen of the confederacy". you don't lose your citizenship by commiting high treason and never being charged for it. they were still american citizens up and until that citizenship is revoked.

    As has been pointed out, this is only true because Lincoln issued a blanket pardon to confederates below command rank.

    yes and they were only citizens in the first part because they were born in this country, what does that matter. they never lost their citizenship, not at any point in time. they were soldiers of the united states of america and should be honored. period.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I suppose that means you send wreaths to serial rapists, provided that they're American.

    Ooo. Wow. Grasping at straws already?

    Such contempt for your fellow countrymen. That must suck for you. You'll grow out of it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    PantsB the nation for the most part has let go of the anger without forgetting the fact that the South supported slavery, shouldn't you too?

    There are many people in the south that I don't think have let it go, at all.

    Those aren't the people the wreath is for though.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sure they are. The wreath is a symbol, just as the monument is. And like I said, the dead do not care about wreaths.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Sure they are. The wreath is a symbol, just as the monument is. And like I said, the dead do not care about wreaths.

    No I'm pretty sure Obama didn't lay down the wreath for the neo-Nazis and KKK members in America.

    Call it a hunch.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I don't think the Daughters of the Confederacy are affiliated with the KKK or neo-nazis, so we can agree on that hunch.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2009
    Sheep wrote: »

    So bravery, valor and patriotism to your home isn't a value to instill in others?

    Hmmm.

    Patriotism is a fucking terrible concept, man.

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ah fuck it this blog says it better than I can.

    http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/773
    I don't think the Daughters of Confederate Soldiers are this genteel southern ladies' group they pretend to be. They have a history of cavorting with the Klan and other white supremacists and they do not deny that the monument was built to glorify the ideology of the South during its secessionist period. I don't want to oversimplify an incredibly complex period of our national history, but the South stood for the right to practice brutal slavery and used violence to resolve its issues with the Union. These are not American values, and Obama does not personify them. But if the only thing these wackos want is a wreath I have to say that frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

    That's right; give the intolerant bastards their silly wreath. OK, can I have my universal healthcare now?

    There are scores of conservative groups circulating lies and opinions about how the president has dishonored the military. Obama not sending a wreath to the Confederate monument would be one more round to add to their arsenal, so to speak. They would take the nugget of truth to the story and mix in all the conspiracy theories about Obama being a socialist Muslim atheist Black Panther born in Africa who is bent on destroying the country. The last thing these loose cannons need is ammo.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • YamiB.YamiB. Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I don't understand how people can think that those fighting on the side of Confederacy didn't commit treason. They raised arms against the army of the United States, it doesn't matter if they were still US citizens. Do you guys just think that treason doesn't exist?

    As for the issue with placing the wreath, I would prefer that it wasn't done. But it is lower on my priorities with this issue or with what Obama should worry about.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    you know, I really didn't see that connection coming

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    YamiB. wrote: »
    I don't understand how people can think that those fighting on the side of Confederacy didn't commit treason. They raised arms against the army of the United States, it doesn't matter if they were still US citizens. Do you guys just think that treason doesn't exist?

    As for the issue with placing the wreath, I would prefer that it wasn't done. But it is lower on my priorities with this issue or with what Obama should worry about.

    very simple. if you commit murder but never get charged, you don't get punished for murder.

    if you commit treason and never get charged or get absolved without ever being charged, you don't get punished for treason.

    they are not traitors because they were never charged with treason. regardless of what they would have been, they were never proven guilty. in the eyes of the law, they were not traitors.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Anyway, that buzzflash post basically sums up the argument about the wreath as I see it. It's unquestionably a sop to some people who remain attached to the cause of the south (and I don't think this is restricted to the blatant racists of the world), and the only arguably "good" reason to do it is to give yourself some cover against whatever crazy attack they dream up.

    I just don't see the point. They already think Obama's a traitorous secret terrorist muslim whatever, and they're going to keep attacking him over it, so why not just be honest and call it what it is.

    edit: I also think a lot of our current regional strife (and the strife we experienced in the 20th century) can be attributed in large part to never fully dispensing with the issues the civil war brought up. It was obviously tremendously uncomfortable to address them at that time and based on this thread it obviously still is. On the other hand, in a world where it was only very recently found scandalous that a southern statehouse continued to fly the confederate flag, we clearly still have some baggage to deal with.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    I don't understand how people can think that those fighting on the side of Confederacy didn't commit treason. They raised arms against the army of the United States, it doesn't matter if they were still US citizens. Do you guys just think that treason doesn't exist?

    As for the issue with placing the wreath, I would prefer that it wasn't done. But it is lower on my priorities with this issue or with what Obama should worry about.

    very simple. if you commit murder but never get charged, you don't get punished for murder.

    if you commit treason and never get charged or get absolved without ever being charged, you don't get punished for treason.

    they are not traitors because they were never charged with treason. regardless of what they would have been, they were never proven guilty. in the eyes of the law, they were not traitors.

    OJ wasn't a murderer, either.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    I don't understand how people can think that those fighting on the side of Confederacy didn't commit treason. They raised arms against the army of the United States, it doesn't matter if they were still US citizens. Do you guys just think that treason doesn't exist?

    As for the issue with placing the wreath, I would prefer that it wasn't done. But it is lower on my priorities with this issue or with what Obama should worry about.

    very simple. if you commit murder but never get charged, you don't get punished for murder.

    if you commit treason and never get charged or get absolved without ever being charged, you don't get punished for treason.

    they are not traitors because they were never charged with treason. regardless of what they would have been, they were never proven guilty. in the eyes of the law, they were not traitors.

    OJ wasn't a murderer, either.

    in the eyes of the law.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    what about in the eyes of people "honoring" him?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • YamiB.YamiB. Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    I don't understand how people can think that those fighting on the side of Confederacy didn't commit treason. They raised arms against the army of the United States, it doesn't matter if they were still US citizens. Do you guys just think that treason doesn't exist?

    As for the issue with placing the wreath, I would prefer that it wasn't done. But it is lower on my priorities with this issue or with what Obama should worry about.

    very simple. if you commit murder but never get charged, you don't get punished for murder.

    if you commit treason and never get charged or get absolved without ever being charged, you don't get punished for treason.

    they are not traitors because they were never charged with treason. regardless of what they would have been, they were never proven guilty. in the eyes of the law, they were not traitors.

    Yeah you don't get punished for murder if you don't get found guilty of it. That doesn't mean that you aren't a murder. If you take an action and are never held accountable for it that still means that you took that action and thus labels related to that action can legitimately be applied to you. I think we can see that obviously those fighting for the Confederacy committed treason and thus should be viewed as traitors even though they were not officially charged. I'm not arguing what they should be in the eyes of the law, I'm arguing how would should consider them in the eyes of society.

    Do you think that people like the murders of Emmett Till shouldn't be labeled as such even with clear evidence just because they were found innocent?

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    what about in the eyes of people "honoring" him?

    if they are honoring him, they probably don't see him as a murderer either. their views have no impact on the law though.

Sign In or Register to comment.