• Confederate Memorial Vandalized in Charleston
    507 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045528]At this point I'm convinced he knows he's wrong and is too dense to admit it "The Confederacy" as a political entity administrated by slave owners and Southern businessmen is not the same thing as "Confederate soldiers" who lived in the areas they defended. They joined the Confederacy because the Confederacy offered them a way to defend their homes from rampaging Union forces.[/QUOTE] Confederate Soldiers didn't work for the Confederacy? Wow, what a coincidence that they were called the same thing. Really. [QUOTE=joshuadim;48045534]It's because their entire economy DEPENDING ON SLAVERY. I'm done arguing with you, you're making baseless claims all the time. You'll never get it through your thick fucking skull that it's a memorial about the lives lost, not about white supremacy as you claim it to be representative of.[/QUOTE] You act like their economy depending on slavery justified their actions in some way and made the soldiers that died defending the right to own slaves heroes. They're not heroes. They're white supremacists that believe that owning other people was okay if the other people were a different color than them. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48045554]Confederacy does not mean all Southern troops.[/QUOTE] Confederacy doesn't mean all southern troops, but "Confederate Defenders" (as the statue says) DOES mean the Confederacy, and the Confederacy means slave owners.
The Civil War was one of the most complicated, and by far the most bloody and brutal war the united people of these states have ever fought. Regardless of side, regardless of belief, the many were driven by the few and butchered one another. It was an insane and horrible war. Cities were burned to the ground. Some were burned to the ground twice during the course of war. Goods were looted from people who had no strong opinion either way and who were entirely neutral. It was a horrible war. With horrible acts committed by both sides. It is a war that should never be forgotten by anyone simply because of how terrible it was. It brought the evil out of men for all to see. The men that fought in defense of their homes were valiant, and the memory of their spirit should never be dragged into the shit show of petty politics. I don't care what side they fought on. Most of them earned their peace a thousand times over.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;48045557]The Civil War was one of the most complicated, and by far the most bloody and brutal war the united people of these states have ever fought. Regardless of side, regardless of belief, the many were driven by the few and butchered one another. It was an insane and horrible war. Cities were burned to the ground. Some were burned to the ground twice during the course of war. Goods were looted from people who had no strong opinion either way and who were entirely neutral. It was a horrible war. With horrible acts committed by both sides. It is a war that should never be forgotten by anymore simply because of how terrible it was. It brought the evil out of men for all to see. The men that fought in defense of their homes were valiant, and the memory of their spirit should never be dragged into the shit show of petty politics. I don't care what side they fought on. Most of them earned their peace a thousand times over.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately people like Calzone aren't going to let it be. Everything's black or white to them. You were either a hero or a villain, and there were no white heroes south of the Mason Dixon line because some white people owned slaves.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045555]Confederate Soldiers didn't work for the Confederacy? Wow, what a coincidence that they were called the same thing. Really.[/QUOTE] Oh my goodness dude you seriously cannot. Confederate Soldiers was a title for the people that fought. These people had differing ideals. Because they were residents in the Confederate States of America, they were titled Confederate Residents or Confederate's for short. And since they were fighting to defend their city, or their land, or whatever. They were soldiers. Making Confederate Soldiers. Just because they had that title doesn't mean they agreed with the ideals of the Confederate States. Many of these people fought to defend their backyard from being a crisp burnt pile of ash. You really need to understand this because you act like every single living being in the Confederate Army was for slavery. [QUOTE=The Calzone;48045555]Confederacy doesn't mean all southern troops, but "Confederate Defenders" (as the statue says) DOES mean the Confederacy, and the Confederacy means slave owners.[/QUOTE] Are you not getting it? It's getting pointless now. Confederate Defenders = Confederate Soldiers = People of the Confederate States defending their home from being ruined.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;48045557]The Civil War was one of the most complicated, and by far the most bloody and brutal war the united people of these states have ever fought. Regardless of side, regardless of belief, the many were driven by the few and butchered one another. It was an insane and horrible war. Cities were burned to the ground. Some were burned to the ground twice during the course of war. Goods were looted from people who had no strong opinion either way and who were entirely neutral. It was a horrible war. With horrible acts committed by both sides. It is a war that should never be forgotten by anyone simply because of how terrible it was. It brought the evil out of men for all to see. The men that fought in defense of their homes were valiant, and the memory of their spirit should never be dragged into the shit show of petty politics. I don't care what side they fought on. Most of them earned their peace a thousand times over.[/QUOTE] Yeah. Find the graves of scum like Forrest and vandalize those motherfuckers. That shitbag had a big role in this modern dogfuck, what with his founding of the KKK and the failure of reconstruction which can be directly traced to the modern issues with race. [editline]25th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045562]Unfortunately people like Calzone aren't going to let it be. Everything's black or white to them. You were either a hero or a villain, and there were no white heroes south of the Mason Dixon line because some white people owned slaves.[/QUOTE] There were the Treue der Union folks who got massacred for their trouble and the milita who refused to fight for the confeds. :v:
Looks like I spoke too soon... [QUOTE=The Calzone;48045555]They're white supremacists that believe that owning other people was okay if the other people were a different color than them.[/QUOTE] So you're just going to ignore what everyone is saying and continue being wrong? Ok then. That's your choice I guess.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48045563]Oh my goodness dude you seriously cannot. Confederate Soldiers was a title for the people that fought. These people had differing ideals. Because they were residents in the Confederate States of America, they were titled Confederate Residents or Confederate's for short. And since they were fighting to defend their city, or their land, or whatever. They were soldiers. Making Confederate Soldiers. Just because they had that title doesn't mean they agreed with the ideals of the Confederate States. Many of these people fought to defend their backyard from being a crisp burnt pile of ash. You really need to understand this because you act like every single living being in the Confederate Army was for slavery. Are you not getting it? It's getting pointless now. Confederate Defenders = Confederate Soldiers = People of the Confederate States defending their home from being ruined.[/QUOTE] You're missing the part where the Confederate States of America were the instigators, and they instigated because they wanted to own slaves. As it has been pointed out, the whole reason that Fort Sumter was under attack was because Confederate Soldiers attacked the Union first. And why did they attack the Union first? Was it because they thought the Union to be bad guys because the Union opposed the states rights to own slaves, meaning that everyone in the states would have to find work that ultimately didn't depend on slave labor? Yes, yes that's exactly why. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48045582]So you're just going to ignore what everyone is saying and continue being wrong? Ok then. That's your choice I guess.[/QUOTE] I'm not ignoring what people are saying, I'm making counterpoints to the specific points that they're making. You're the one hanging on the sidelines not making any points and just saying "dang get a load of THIS GUY, he DOESN'T hate black people and can understand why a memorial dedicated to the bad guys in the Civil War might not be liked by the group of people that aforementioned bad guys oppressed back then? What a maroon."
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;48045574]Yeah. Find the graves of scum like Forrest and vandalize those motherfuckers. That shitbag had a big role in this modern dogfuck, what with his founding of the KKK and the failure of reconstruction which can be directly traced to the modern issues with race.[/QUOTE] Forrest is an interesting case. He officially dissolved the Klan and renounced his prior racism, but historians seem to be divided on whether or not he was genuine. I tend to think a leopard can't change its spots, but really there was no particular reason for him to do that in a time when it was totally OK to profess that kind of viewpoint. Interesting case.
You guys are getting history Mixed up. The FIRST attack on Fort Sumter was by South Carolina troops on the Union. The south started the war. The 2nd battle of Fort Sumter was during the retaking of the south. Fort sumter was not being defended in an invading northern army in the wake of the south seceding, it was being defended by a rebelling SOUTHERN army in the wake of secession. LATER it was defended against the union after the union retook south carolina.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045555]Confederate Soldiers didn't work for the Confederacy? Wow, what a coincidence that they were called the same thing. Really. You act like their economy depending on slavery justified their actions in some way and made the soldiers that died defending the right to own slaves heroes. They're not heroes. They're white supremacists that believe that owning other people was okay if the other people were a different color than them. Confederacy doesn't mean all southern troops, but "Confederate Defenders" (as the statue says) DOES mean the Confederacy, and the Confederacy means slave owners.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ you still don't get it. I'm not justifying the system of slavery in any way, shape or form. You're taking things out of context and making baseless claims. Let me bold my text so you can actually read it: [B]MOST PEOPLE IN THE CONFEDERACY DID NOT OWN SLAVES. THEY MAY HAVE SUPPORTED THE SYSTEM OF SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH BECAUSE THE ECONOMY WAS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON IT. THE CONFEDERATE TROOPS WERE MOSTLY MADE UP OF SLAVELESS MEN WHO DID NOT OWN SLAVES.[/B]
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045605]Jesus christ you still don't get it. I'm not justifying the system of slavery in any way, shape or form. You're taking things out of context and making baseless claims. Let me bold my text so you can actually read it: [B]MOST PEOPLE IN THE CONFEDERACY DID NOT OWN SLAVES. THEY MAY HAVE SUPPORTED THE SYSTEM OF SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH BECAUSE THE ECONOMY WAS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON IT. THE CONFEDERATE TROOPS WERE MOSTLY MADE UP OF SLAVELESS MEN WHO DID NOT OWN SLAVES.[/B][/QUOTE] [B]... WHO THEMSELVES WERE OFTEN EFFECTIVELY ENSLAVED BY THE SYSTEM OF INDENTURED SERVITUDE.[/B]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045601]Forrest is an interesting case. He officially dissolved the Klan and renounced his prior racism, but historians seem to be divided on whether or not he was genuine. I tend to think a leopard can't change its spots, but really there was no particular reason for him to do that in a time when it was totally OK to profess that kind of viewpoint. Interesting case.[/QUOTE] I think people can "see the light" so to say and change. I also like to give people second chances. But then again, I'm more optimistic about society as a whole most likely.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045595]You're missing the part where the Confederate States of America were the instigators, and they instigated because they wanted to own slaves. As it has been pointed out, the whole reason that Fort Sumter was under attack was because Confederate Soldiers attacked the Union first. And why did they attack the Union first? Was it because they thought the Union to be bad guys because the Union opposed the states rights to own slaves, meaning that everyone in the states would have to find work that ultimately didn't depend on slave labor? Yes, yes that's exactly why.[/QUOTE] You act like I purposely avoid that detail and want the Confederate State's to look totally right. And you're wrong in the process and you're completely avoiding what I'm saying for whatever reason, and it's getting annoying to reiterate this part each time. Just because the government committed a certain action, doesn't mean its residents are going to agree 100%. Sure you'll get the few that do, but many don't. And in that example, many people in the south either owned 0 slaves, or were so against it that they formed militias so they didn't have to defend the Confederate States. But the second the battle was brought to their backyard, they had to stand up and defend their home, and their city. This memorial that was vandalized represents the people, whatever their ideals were, that defended their city from being attacked.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045605]Jesus christ you still don't get it. I'm not justifying the system of slavery in any way, shape or form. You're taking things out of context and making baseless claims. Let me bold my text so you can actually read it: [B]MOST PEOPLE IN THE CONFEDERACY DID NOT OWN SLAVES. THEY MAY HAVE SUPPORTED THE SYSTEM OF SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH BECAUSE THE ECONOMY WAS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON IT. THE CONFEDERATE TROOPS WERE MOSTLY MADE UP OF SLAVELESS MEN WHO DID NOT OWN SLAVES.[/B][/QUOTE] But they still supported the system, and that makes them in the wrong. There is no excuse for supporting Slavery. The confederate troops supported slavery whether they owned slaves or not because, as you said, the economy depended on slaves. The statue honors the memory of people that supported the systematic oppression of black people and represents racism against blacks.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48045611]I think people can "see the light" so to say and change. I also like to give people second chances. But then again, I'm more optimistic about society as a whole most likely.[/QUOTE] Well, sure, but I also think a founding member of the KKK might be an exception to that. Who really knows, though? He did make some pretty progressive (for the time) statements and motions, but didn't catch enough traction for anyone to see what he would have done with any power he obtained through that.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045601]Forrest is an interesting case. He officially dissolved the Klan and renounced his prior racism, but historians seem to be divided on whether or not he was genuine. I tend to think a leopard can't change its spots, but really there was no particular reason for him to do that in a time when it was totally OK to profess that kind of viewpoint. Interesting case.[/QUOTE] Considering his wartime activities... bullshitting through and through. Ought to have been given a hemp necktie.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045616]But they still supported the system, and that makes them in the wrong. There is no excuse for supporting Slavery. The confederate troops supported slavery whether they owned slaves or not because, as you said, the economy depended on slaves. The statue honors the memory of people that supported the systematic oppression of black people and represents racism against blacks.[/QUOTE] So they should immediately drop slavery when they and their ancestors have been dependent on it for hundreds of years? Yeah, that would be great for their economy at that time! Also can you stop with the memorial memorializing racism, because you've stated this without proving it multiple times, which has been refuted multiple times as well.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045616]But they still supported the system, and that makes them in the wrong. There is no excuse for supporting Slavery. The confederate troops supported slavery whether they owned slaves or not because, as you said, the economy depended on slaves. The statue honors the memory of people that supported the systematic oppression of black people and represents racism against blacks.[/QUOTE] [B]THEY SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR ECONOMY. WITHOUT IT THEY WERE F-U-C-K-E-D FUCKED.[/B] They would have no money whatsoever without that economy. So as much as they hated slavery, they had to hope those states could maintain some form of economic balance or they wouldn't be able to support its residents, therefore the resident(s) against slavery will not have any form of money, or food, or housing, because the government will have no funding to support the nation they have created by seceding. [U]And no, I don't agree with them seceding, or slavery, or anything they did. But these people did it because their economy was loosely based around slavery because of the actions of the people running the Confederate State's.[/U]
"There's no excuse for supporting slavery" What else could they fucking support Calzone? Please enlighten us with your ideals
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;48045622]Considering his wartime activities... bullshitting through and through. Ought to have been given a hemp necktie.[/QUOTE] I agree for the most part, but wartime testimony by black soldiers under his command provides an interesting counter viewpoint. He apparently made efforts to return Union wounded to Union medical facilities including black Union soldiers.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045625]So they should immediately drop slavery when they and their ancestors have been dependent on it for hundreds of years? Yeah, that would be great for their economy at that time! Also can you stop with the memorial memorializing racism, because you've stated this without proving it multiple times, which has been refuted multiple times as well.[/QUOTE] You haven't refuted anything, you've just ignored every time I've explained why it represents racism and asked me to explain it again, which I happily did every time you requested. You just seem to be in the habit of overlooking those explanations. And... yes? Yes they should have dropped slavery? Because slavery is evil? You're saying that slavery should have been kept because it was used in the past? This whole nation was built on the backs of slavery, some parts of it were able to let go of it no problem. The South being dependent on slavery didn't justify them keeping it. You're being silly.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045642]You haven't refuted anything, you've just ignored every time I've explained why it represents racism and asked me to explain it again, which I happily did every time you requested. You just seem to be in the habit of overlooking those explanations. And... yes? Yes they should have dropped slavery? Because slavery is evil? You're saying that slavery should have been kept because it was used in the past? This whole nation was built on the backs of slavery, some parts of it were able to let go of it no problem. The South being dependent on slavery didn't justify them keeping it. You're being silly.[/QUOTE] Except at the time of the Civil War, those parts hadn't [I]really[/I] let go of it. Blacks in the North were still forced to work for effectively no pay in near lethal conditions for inhuman hours. The North just found a better name for it.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045642]You haven't refuted anything, you've just ignored every time I've explained why it represents racism and asked me to explain it again, which I happily did every time you requested. You just seem to be in the habit of overlooking those explanations. [B]And... yes? Yes they should have dropped slavery? Because slavery is evil? You're saying that slavery should have been kept because it was used in the past? [/B] This whole nation was built on the backs of slavery, some parts of it were able to let go of it no problem. The South being dependent on slavery didn't justify them keeping it. You're being silly.[/QUOTE] They could not drop slavery because their economy was based around it. If they dropped it, they would've had no way to support their residents. Mississippi, now the poorest state in the US, was the richest state in the US because of slavery. Mississippi's economy was entirely built upon slavery, and without it, they would've had no way to support their state. Much like the Confederate State's. Blacks weren't doing good in the North either. They were separated from whites. Given crazy hours to work, and getting little pay for it. Racism was rampant. [U]And it was unfortunate. [/U]
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045595]I'm not ignoring what people are saying, I'm making counterpoints to the specific points that they're making. You're the one hanging on the sidelines not making any points and just saying "dang get a load of THIS GUY, he DOESN'T hate black people and can understand why a memorial dedicated to the bad guys in the Civil War might not be liked by the group of people that aforementioned bad guys oppressed back then? What a maroon."[/QUOTE] If you weren't ignoring what people were saying, you would know by now that the slavery wasn't based on white supremacy, not everyone who fired a gun at union soldiers were actually fighting for the Confederate Government's ideals, and that not everyone who lived in the Confederate States supported slavery. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045617]Well, sure, but I also think a founding member of the KKK might be an exception to that. Who really knows, though? He did make some pretty progressive (for the time) statements and motions, but didn't catch enough traction for anyone to see what he would have done with any power he obtained through that.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, he's not squeaky clean, in fact his life is permanently stained by helping start the KKK. But it would be disrespectful to assume he couldn't have been sincere in his later years.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045642]You haven't refuted anything, you've just ignored every time I've explained why it represents racism and asked me to explain it again, which I happily did every time you requested. You just seem to be in the habit of overlooking those explanations. And... yes? Yes they should have dropped slavery? Because slavery is evil? You're saying that slavery should have been kept because it was used in the past? This whole nation was built on the backs of slavery, some parts of it were able to let go of it no problem. The South being dependent on slavery didn't justify them keeping it. You're being silly.[/QUOTE] You're overlooking basic fucking economics at the time. The South was an agrarian economy, entirely dependent on their crops, which required slaves, because no white man would do it. If they dropped slavery altogether, no one would be able to pick the crops. No picking the crops means no selling them. No selling means no money returned for the growing of crops. No money means no buying seeds. No seeds means no crops. The entire system would collapse and everyone would be pretty fucking poor. Calzone, you overlook basic facts as to why the system of slavery was implemented in the South in the first place: to make money. And as such, you generalize it as an evil that should've been abandoned immediately, when in fact they couldn't.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045660]You're overlooking basic fucking economics at the time. The South was an agrarian economy, entirely dependent on their crops, which required slaves, because no white man would do it. If they dropped slavery altogether, no one would be able to pick the crops. No picking the crops means no selling them. No selling means no money returned for the growing of crops. No money means no buying seeds. No seeds means no crops. The entire system would collapse and everyone would be pretty fucking poor. Calzone, you overlook basic facts as to why the system of slavery was implemented in the South in the first place: to make money. And as such, you generalize it as an evil that should've been abandoned immediately, when in fact they couldn't.[/QUOTE] White men did do it and they did it in the same conditions as the black men that did it. There just weren't enough to meet the demand for goods from northern consumers :v:
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045665]White men did do it and they did it in the same conditions as the black men that did it. There just weren't enough to meet the demand for goods from northern consumers :v:[/QUOTE] Not to the extent that black slaves were used. If slavery were dropped, there wouldn't be enough white workers on the plantations to support the economy of the time.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045660]You're overlooking basic fucking economics at the time. The South was an agrarian economy, entirely dependent on their crops, which required slaves.[/QUOTE] They still had an economy after the war. Sharecroppers basically lived in slave-like conditions.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48045630][B]THEY SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR ECONOMY. WITHOUT IT THEY WERE F-U-C-K-E-D FUCKED.[/B] They would have no money whatsoever without that economy. So as much as they hated slavery, they had to hope those states could maintain some form of economic balance or they wouldn't be able to support its residents, therefore the resident(s) against slavery will not have any form of money, or food, or housing, because the government will have no funding to support the nation they have created by seceding. [U]And no, I don't agree with them seceding, or slavery, or anything they did. But these people did it because their economy was loosely based around slavery because of the actions of the people running the Confederate State's.[/U][/QUOTE] If the South hadn't seceded and agreed to abolish slavery amicably, I'm certain they would have been able to rebuild their economy in to one that wasn't based on slavery. After the war was over and they lost, the South was able to rebuild in to an economy that didn't depend on it. There road to rebuilding was bumpy on account of the whole "the confederacy was monstrously in debt after the war" thing, but they managed to do it. Them "needing slavery" isn't an excuse. They didn't "need" slavery. The south was able to rebuild without slavery in conditions worse than they would have had if they had never gone to war at all. Your argument that the south was "F-U-C-K-E-D FUCKED" without slavery is incorrect. If they had agreed to abolish it, shit would have gone fine. They didn't though. Because they didn't want to. Because they liked not having to pay their work force. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48045654]If you weren't ignoring what people were saying, you would know by now that the slavery wasn't based on white supremacy, not everyone who fired a gun at union soldiers were actually fighting for the Confederate Government's ideals, and that not everyone who lived in the Confederate States supported slavery.[/QUOTE] "slavery wasn't based on white supremacy" "the idea that white people had the right to own black people because white people were superior to black people wasn't based on white supremacy" lol okay dude
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48045670]They still had an economy after the war. Sharecroppers basically lived in slave-like conditions.[/QUOTE] I know that, but Calzone is talking about dropping slavery before the war altogether. Which would be literally impossible without destroying the economy at the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.