- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Statues honoring Gen. Lee is not the same as statues honoring Hitler
Posted on 8/20/17 at 10:44 am
Posted on 8/20/17 at 10:44 am
It's a false equivalency to compare having statues honoring confederate leaders and soldiers to having statues in Germany honoring Hitler and Nazis.
After the Civil war, it was decided in order to unite the country again, we would allow the South to honor their heritage including their leaders like Gen. Lee and the soldiers who fought for the South even if those statues weren't erected until after the Jim Crow laws were outlawed.
Germany didn't have to unite it's people after WWII. The German people as a whole had to accept guilt for what their country and leaders did in WWII in their name.
That's why there are no statues honoring Hitler and Nazis in Germany.
After the Civil war, it was decided in order to unite the country again, we would allow the South to honor their heritage including their leaders like Gen. Lee and the soldiers who fought for the South even if those statues weren't erected until after the Jim Crow laws were outlawed.
Germany didn't have to unite it's people after WWII. The German people as a whole had to accept guilt for what their country and leaders did in WWII in their name.
That's why there are no statues honoring Hitler and Nazis in Germany.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 10:47 am
8
Posted on 8/20/17 at 10:49 am to DawgfaninCa
Lee and Beauregard worked to get the remaining Southern military to surrender, and worked to unify the country after the war. They were honorable men and can in no way be compared to Hitler.
MAGA
MAGA
Posted on 8/20/17 at 10:58 am to mofungoo
quote:
Lee and Beauregard worked to get the remaining Southern military to surrender, and worked to unify the country after the war. They were honorable men and can in no way be compared to Hitler.
And the descendants of the soldiers who fought for the South during the Civil war later fought for the USA in WWII and helped defeat the Nazis.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:04 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
It's a false equivalency to compare having statues honoring confederate leaders and soldiers to having statues in Germany honoring Hitler and Nazis.
You're right.
The having statues honoring lee and the soldiers of the confederacy are in place to honor traitors to the nation y'all call home.
Most of them were put up to give the southerners a "participation trophy" for a war that they lost.
Honoring traitors isn't something anyone should aspire to do.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:20 am to asurob1
quote:
The having statues honoring lee and the soldiers of the confederacy are in place to honor traitors to the nation y'all call home.
Most of them were put up to give the southerners a "participation trophy" for a war that they lost.
Honoring traitors isn't something anyone should aspire to do.
So you disagree with what Lincoln decided would be the best way to unite the country after the Civil war ended.
Why did Lincoln decide before he was assassinated that he wasn't going to have Gen. Lee and the other soldiers who fought for the South arrested and hung as traitors immediately after the Civil war ended?
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:34 am to asurob1
quote:
The having statues honoring lee and the soldiers of the confederacy are in place to honor traitors to the nation y'all call home.
Wrong, but you already know that.
quote:
Most of them were put up to give the southerners a "participation trophy" for a war that they lost.
Honoring traitors isn't something anyone should aspire to do.
Have you ever fought for anything? Then stfu. The positive things they did were already pointed out. Stop trying to virtue signal. The two sides came together after the war and made peace, but soft regressives like you are still full of hate.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:37 am to Dead End
quote:
Most of them were put up to give the southerners a "participation trophy" for a war that they lost. Honoring traitors isn't something anyone should aspire to do.
Finally somebody said it. Thank you, sir.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:37 am to asurob1
What about Andrew Jackson? The SCOTUS justice? Keep playing this game that its just about conf statues.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:25 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
The having statues honoring lee and the soldiers of the confederacy are in place to honor traitors to the nation y'all call home.
Most of them were put up to give the southerners a "participation trophy" for a war that they lost.
Honoring traitors isn't something anyone should aspire to do.
quote:
So you disagree with what Lincoln decided would be the best way to unite the country after the Civil war ended.
Why do you think Lincoln didn't have Gen. Lee and the other soldiers who fought for the South arrested and hung as traitors after the Civil war ended?
As usual, assorob1 makes a drive-by insult then leaves so he doesn't have to answer a legitimate question.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
After the Civil war, it was decided in order to unite the country again, we would allow the South to honor their heritage including their leaders like Gen. Lee and the soldiers who fought for the South even if those statues weren't erected until after the Jim Crow laws were outlawed.
Ok, I think they have done their job then and we can move on. I'm fairly sure everyone from the Civil War era is dead.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:43 pm to luckylefty
quote:
Most of them were put up to give the southerners a "participation trophy" for a war that they lost. Honoring traitors isn't something anyone should aspire to do.
quote:
Finally somebody said it. Thank you, sir.
Since you agree with assorob1 and he is too chickenshit to answer my question then you can answer it.
Why did Lincoln decide before he was assassinated that he wasn't going to have Gen. Lee and the other soldiers who fought for the South arrested and hung as traitors immediately after the Civil war ended?
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:46 pm to asurob1
quote:You don't know the meaning of the word.
traitors
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:48 pm to barry
quote:
After the Civil war, it was decided in order to unite the country again, we would allow the South to honor their heritage including their leaders like Gen. Lee and the soldiers who fought for the South even if those statues weren't erected until after the Jim Crow laws were outlawed.
quote:
Ok, I think they have done their job then and we can move on. I'm fairly sure everyone from the Civil War era is dead.
If you believe that then you also believe there is no need for reparations for slavery because I"m fairly sure every person who was a slave is dead.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:48 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
So you disagree with what Lincoln decided would be the best way to unite the country after the Civil war ended.
i do... and i'm sure had he lived long enough, he probably would have said the same, tbh...
quote:
Why did Lincoln decide before he was assassinated that he wasn't going to have Gen. Lee and the other soldiers who fought for the South arrested and hung as traitors immediately after the Civil war ended?
maybe compassion? maybe respect? maybe he realized that enough blood had been spilled that by killing them wouldn't do two squirts of piss as far righting the wrongs that were committed... maybe he realized we needed those former soldiers in the reconstruction, seeing as many of our young men died on the battlefields and we had a need for able bodied men...
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:55 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
If you believe that then you also believe there is no need for reparations for slavery
reparations, in monetary/fiduciary terms, no... how can you really put a price on what happened and how could you guarantee that amount would actually "satisfy" the masses? you can't, therefore, no...
reparations, in terms of race relations, yes... i do think that even today there is a disparity amongst races in terms of prejudices and subsequent treatment... and as much as it pains me to say it, i've have been guilty in the past, myself of it and had to sorta get my act together, as it relates to preconceived notions...
quote:
I"m fairly sure every person who was a slave is dead.
that's a pretty good assumption... and fwiw, i don't think every black american here today is a direct descendant of a slave, just like every white person isn't a direct descendant of slave owners, just like not every mexican crossed over illegally, just like not every muslim is directly involved somehow with a terrorist, etc... but i do think every Swede has a hot blonde cousin...
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:56 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Germany didn't have to unite it's people after WWII. The German people as a whole had to accept guilt for what their country and leaders did in WWII in their name.
Brah, we broke their country into four pieces and occupied them.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 2:02 pm to Dead End
quote:
The two sides came together after the war and made peace, but soft regressives like you are still full of hate.
150 years later and people seem outraged. Why does this trigger some people so badly all of a sudden? I think it's because Trump won and is kicking all of their SJW political correctness up their butts and they are pissed and lashing out any way they can
MAGA
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 2:29 pm to chRxis
quote:
So you disagree with what Lincoln decided would be the best way to unite the country after the Civil war ended.
quote:
i do... and i'm sure had he lived long enough, he probably would have said the same, tbh...
How much longer do you think Lincoln would have had to live before he decided he made a mistake and arrested Gen. Lee as well as all of the soldiers who fought for the South for being traitors and hung them?
quote:
Why did Lincoln decide before he was assassinated that he wasn't going to have Gen. Lee and the other soldiers who fought for the South arrested and hung as traitors immediately after the Civil war ended?
quote:
maybe compassion? maybe respect? maybe he realized that enough blood had been spilled that by killing them wouldn't do two squirts of piss as far righting the wrongs that were committed... maybe he realized we needed those former soldiers in the reconstruction, seeing as many of our young men died on the battlefields and we had a need for able bodied men...
Or maybe President Lincoln gave his reason in his second inaugural address when he said,
quote:
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Not only that but if Jefferson Davis, Gen. lee and all of the other soldiers who fought for the South during the Civil war had been hung as traitors then a lot of their descendants would never have been born so they wouldn't have fought in WWII and helped the USA defeat the Nazis.
Lincoln and Grant both knew that executing the leaders and soldiers who fought for the South after they surrendered while they still were able to fight would ensure there would be a guerrilla war and many more deaths in the future.
quote:
Lee was never hung for treason because of General Ulysses Grant and the terms offered to him and accepted at Appottomax Courthouse. These terms included: “…each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.”
Following the war, The New York Times called for Lee to be indicted upon charges of treason for waging war on the United States. Indictments were delivered for Lee, Early, and Longstreet. President Johnson was also an advocate of harsh treatment towards the generals of the rebellion.
Upon hearing of his indictment for treason, Lee reached out to General Grant to ask him whether the terms of his surrender were to be enforced? Grant in turn reached out to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and informed him of his view that these men could not be tried for treason as long as observed the terms of their parole and that the U.S., by breaking these terms, could cause these men to feel as though they were released from their terms of surrender entirely.
Grant also met with President Johnson and a showdown ensued. Johnson stated that he was not going to back down from prosecuting Lee and his generals. Grant then threatened Johnson, if he was to not honor the terms of Lee’s surrender and to pursue prosecution of Lee, Grant would resign his commission in the United States Army. Given Grant’s massive popularity, and Johnson’s own tenuous position as a Democratic president in a period of absolute republican political dominance (who would be impeached later) Johnson had realized he had lost this battle. The public would never have supported Johnson over Grant given his massive popularity. The indictment against Lee was dropped.
Grant then responded to Lee’s letter informing him that the terms of his surrender were to be honored and were the opinion of the US Govt. Grant copied Lee on his previous comments to Secretary Stanton. Grant however, never told Lee how far he had actually gone to protect him and his generals.
LINK
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 2:43 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
Germany didn't have to unite it's people after WWII. The German people as a whole had to accept guilt for what their country and leaders did in WWII in their name.
quote:
Brah, we broke their country into four pieces and occupied them.
I'm talking about the German people being united behind Hitler and the Nazis during WWII so there was no need to unite the German people after WWII.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 3:04 pm to chRxis
quote:
If you believe that then you also believe there is no need for reparations for slavery
quote:
reparations, in monetary/fiduciary terms, no... how can you really put a price on what happened and how could you guarantee that amount would actually "satisfy" the masses? you can't, therefore, no...
reparations, in terms of race relations, yes...
50 years of Affirmative Action is a form of reparations that the descendants of slaves had the opportunity to take advantage of to satisfy them.
quote:
i do think that even today there is a disparity amongst races in terms of prejudices and subsequent treatment
Do you just think that or do you know that?
quote:
and as much as it pains me to say it, i've have been guilty in the past, myself of it and had to sorta get my act together, as it relates to preconceived notions...
Speak for yourself.
I have never in the past held prejudice against anyone and treated them poorly merely because of the color of their skin.
I have always treated everyone equally as an individual regardless of the color of their skin until they did something that made me respect them less than other people.
For example, I respect a white drug dealer less than I respect a black janitor.
quote:
i don't think every black american here today is a direct descendant of a slave, just like every white person isn't a direct descendant of slave owners, just like not every mexican crossed over illegally, just like not every muslim is directly involved somehow with a terrorist, etc...
No one including President Trump is saying every Mexican crossed over illegally or every Muslim is directly involved somehow with a terrorist.
quote:
but i do think every Swede has a hot blonde cousin...
Now that we can agree on.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News