The People's Cultural Revolution

[T.Lex]

I appreciate Vigano's actions toward McCarrick.

Catholic priests are, IMHO, generally susceptible to the same bad judgment as the population at large.

 

[9lock]

I do not see this removal of statues a good thing for future generations.
Every time I see this one thing comes to mind, Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Did anyone happen to see the beginning of the NASCAR race? Bubba Wallace is calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from NASCAR.
And I found it interesting his face mask had an American flag on it.
Was not our founding fathers also slave owners? So what next.
The removal of Washington statues? Jackson? and a redesign of the American flag and oh! BTW who wrote the U.S. Constitution?
Will it need to be removed from public view as well? and replaced with something else that does not include the 2nd Amendment so our kids and grand kids can become slaves regardless of color.

Does anybody else see this path.

And this covid nonsense is global terrorism, so why has the Patriot Act not been put into play to bring those responsible to pay for murder from that new lab in Wuhan.

 

[ghuns]

Because before all of that Northern Aggression stuff they were US Soldiers and as such are veterans still entitled to honor...

If it was really that simple, we'd have military bases named after Benedict Arnold and grand statues erected in his honor.

Instead, he got this...

The monument reads...

In memory of
the "most brilliant soldier" of the
Continental Army
who was desperately wounded
on this spot the sally port of
BURGOYNES GREAT WESTERN REDOUBT
7th October, 1777
winning for his countrymen
the decisive battle of the
American Revolution
and for himself the rank of
Major General.

On other monuments, where the names of our victorious generals are listed, blank spaces were left where his name should be. At West Point, only his rank and DOB are recorded.

Why should one traitor, who prior to betraying country was a f**kin rock star of the American Revolution, be denied any small honor while others are honored as if they fought for the winning side?

 

[DadSmith]

Many of those southern generals also fought for the United States before the Civil War started. Do they not deserve recognition for that?

 

[JettaKnight]

Many of those southern generals also fought for the United States before the Civil War started. Do they not deserve recognition for that?

Funny how becoming a traitor wipe out a legacy of good service.


PS - I guess it depends which uniform they're wearing when immortalized.

 

[ghuns]

...Do they not deserve recognition for that?

They clearly have recognition for that.

I'm asking why does Benedict Arnold not?

In Arnold's case, great efforts were made to see to it that his name was omitted from any place of honor, anywhere.

Why is that not the case with traitors from below the Mason-Dixon Line?

 

[Brad69]

You really wanna watch heads explode name a Fort after General Von Steuben!


During reconstruction the Army Fort’s in the south were named after southern Generals so as not to intimidate the southerners and as a act of reconciliation.

Arnold‘s betrayal is unbelievable on same level as Lucifer IMO. He also slaughtered American troops after they surrendered near his home town he knew many of them from childhood.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Grant had a tank named after him too. (also known as the Lee in some places)

Google it:
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M3_Lee_Grant.php

 

[NKBJ]

I thought she was a doll (Lee Grant) .

 

[Mikey1911]

I thought she was a doll (Lee Grant) .

She was still attractive in “Marooned” (1969), but probably the least attractive of the three astronauts’ wives (Mariette Hartley was my favorite, but her character’s personality was almost annoying as Gene Hackman’s “Buzz Lloyd”).

Would she have to change her name today, or would having been blacklisted in the ‘50s give her enough points to leave it unchanged?

 

[NKBJ]

Start with The Tariff Of 1828 and work your way through the next three decades to Lincoln's 1858 "house divided" speech.
And then dig really deep and find the court case Lincoln was involved in that resulted from the European attempt (using European churches as operational bases) to take back control of the Mississippi Valley. Throw in the younger brother of Franz Joseph of Austria invading Mexico as soon the the two American republics started shooting at each other. The picture is not pretty. The stench that the establishment decides to clip out of history is just amazing.

 

[mmpsteve]

An honest question for everyone who thinks Confederates were traitors:

If you believe that the southern states joined the US on a voluntary basis, why did they not have the right to leave the US on a voluntary basis. Is it written somewhere that once you joined, it was permanent?

Bonus points for anyone who can give a lucid, rational answer WITHOUT calling me a racist, slavery-loving bigot. My family history does not include owning slaves, nor do I approve of the practice.

.

 

[Mikey1911]

An honest question for everyone who thinks Confederates were traitors:

If you believe that the southern states joined the US on a voluntary basis, why did they not have the right to leave the US on a voluntary basis. Is it written somewhere that once you joined, it was permanent?

Bonus points for anyone who can give a lucid, rational answer WITHOUT calling me a racist, slavery-loving bigot. My family history does not include owning slaves, nor do I approve of the practice.

.

In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, he advanced the premise that the Constitution was an improvement to—not a repudiation of—“The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, and that the first purpose of the Constitution “To form a more perfect Union” did not permit any state or group of states to unilaterally leave the Union. Secession would, to Lincoln, clearly leave the Union “less perfect” than before.

The “contract” between the several States making up the Union, in Lincoln’s view, could not be broken by any one of them wishing to leave the Union; such separation would require the consent of all parties (states) within the union.

 

[NKBJ]

States then weren't what they are now. If you hadn't fought for your state then that would be about as close to being a traitor as you could get. However...

There were much larger issues at hand. The houses of Europe were setting up the states for a calamitous divide and conquer retaking. That's how things were done back then (oh, and now too by the way!).
With the perspective of sitting here a century and half removed from the propagandizing of the populaces of the day I think that the US federal government was rotted with northeastern establishment traitors or else the financial rape of the southern states could not have gone on for decades because the break up of the Union was understood to be the sure result. And if there were not also people in the southern establishment dead set upon getting the shooting started it probably would not have started anywhere near so quickly. So I have to say I think that there were plenty of traitors to share. But was a man a traitor for fighting for his state? No, I don't think so.
Nor were the ones that got fooled, propagandized by big money controlled newspapers, pamphlets and fiery orators into marching off to end slavery. That process of demonizing a chosen enemy in order to get men to go fight is the way it's done, just like Belgie babies raised up on German bayonets and Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. They do it that way because it works. And they had years of prep to get them ready for the shooting to start.
In retrospect it wasn't glorious. No, it was stupid. And we just keep falling for it again and again.

 

[NKBJ]

In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, he advanced the premise that the Constitution was an improvement to—not a repudiation of—“The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, and that the first purpose of the Constitution “To form a more perfect Union” did not permit any state or group of states to unilaterally leave the Union. Secession would, to Lincoln, clearly leave the Union “less perfect” than before.

The “contract” between the several States making up the Union, in Lincoln’s view, could not be broken by any one of them wishing to leave the Union; such separation would require the consent of all parties (states) within the union.

Go back to Lincoln's prior experience. He had already been exposed to and was conversant with the plots to retake control of the continent. As concerns his opinions, he was completely pragmatic about politics. He chose a course and laid the groundwork to achieve his objective. That is what he showed his opinions to be.
Concerning President Lincoln, over the years a lot of people have berated each other over Lincoln's actions. Oh he was a dictator, oh he despoiled the constitution, on and on and on. The man did what he had to do to get the job done with what he had to work with. He delayed the thugs from across the pond for another half a century.
Good job Mister Lincoln.

 

[mmpsteve]

Thank you, gentlemen, for the cordial responses. Last week, when I mentioned the War was about more than just slavery (as in States' Rights), I was slightly skewered by a couple of the resident 'scholars'.

As regards Lincoln's view on slavery, I've heard him quoted as saying: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that...."

I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it shows a greater desire to save the union than free the slaves.

p.s.: and before anybody comes along to skewer me again, I well know that Lincoln was against slavery. I found the following page to be of interest, concerning Lincoln's quoted viewpoints:

Slavery Quotations by Abraham Lincoln


The very first quoted item, after the intro, I found particularly interesting, although allegedly written in 1852.

.

 

[NKBJ]

Slavery was an existing issue to be sure. And it was used to effect division.

 

[JettaKnight]

Thank you, gentlemen, for the cordial responses. Last week, when I mentioned the War was about more than just slavery (as in States' Rights), I was slightly skewered by a couple of the resident 'scholars'.

As regards Lincoln's view on slavery, I've heard him quoted as saying: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that...."

I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it shows a greater desire to save the union than free the slaves.

p.s.: and before anybody comes along to skewer me again, I well know that Lincoln was against slavery. I found the following page to be of interest, concerning Lincoln's quoted viewpoints:

Slavery Quotations by Abraham Lincoln


The very first quoted item, after the intro, I found particularly interesting, although allegedly written in 1852.

.

Lincoln's desire to retain the Union does not determine the Confederacies reason to the leave the Union.

 

[Route 45]

Confederate statues are so last week...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protesters-tear-down-racist-statue-thomas-jefferson

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Confederate statues are so last week...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protesters-tear-down-racist-statue-thomas-jefferson

They're too stupid to realize that if it weren't for Jefferson and his compatriots, they wouldn't have the freedom to do this bull****. I hope they're prosecuted for vandalism.