Confederate monuments

Do confederate monuments need to be taken down?

  • Yes- they have no place in our current American climate.

    Votes: 4 7.4%

  • No- they are history and right or wrong they deserved to be recognized.

    Votes: 39 72.2%

  • Don’t care as you can learn the history without them.

    Votes: 11 20.4%
  • Total voters
    54
#26
#26
happy-go_vol said:
Maybe we should get rid of all monuments and start our history on 1960. You marxists would love that
Click to expand...

We should just get rid of public monuments to figures who should not be memorialized. That's all anybody is advocating. Statues are not history. They are endorsements of history.

"Marxist" is like the toothless red state version of throwing "racist" around, except red hats have co-opted the race card now, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, Septic and tvolsfan
#27
#27
n_huffhines said:
We should just get rid of public monuments to figures who should not be memorialized. That's all anybody is advocating. Statues are not history. They are endorsements of history.

"Marxist" is like the toothless red state version of throwing "racist" around, except red hats have co-opted the race card now, too.
Click to expand...
Perfectly said.
 
#29
#29
hog88 said:
The Lincoln Monument needs to go also. How do you memorialize a man that trampled the constitution, threatened to arrest judges that ruled against him and started a civil war?
Click to expand...
We’re memorializing him for keeping the country together and leading the charge to abolish slavery, not for suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus. You’re going to have to do better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#30
#30
hog88 said:
The Lincoln Monument needs to go also. How do you memorialize a man that trampled the constitution, threatened to arrest judges that ruled against him and started a civil war?
Click to expand...

I'm good with that.
 
#31
#31
n_huffhines said:
We should just get rid of public monuments to figures who should not be memorialized. That's all anybody is advocating. Statues are not history. They are endorsements of history.

"Marxist" is like the toothless red state version of throwing "racist" around, except red hats have co-opted the race card now, too.
Click to expand...

Occasionally you'll see one toss out a "Boshevicks!" like they're too cultured to call someone a socialist or a Marxist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and n_huffhines
#33
#33
tvolsfan said:
We’re memorializing him for keeping the country together and leading the charge to abolish slavery, not for suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus. You’re going to have to do better than that.
Click to expand...

If we're being honest about who Lincoln was and what motivated him, he doesn't deserve a monument. His desire was to fortify the strength of the central government and keep the union together and 2% of the country died for that cause, not to mention all the economic turmoil. I don't give a **** how many states we have. I don't think a stronger central government is worth sacrificing 2% of the population.

Think about it like this...would you be willing to have 7 million people die to force California to stay in the United States? I say let them go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia and hog88
#39
#39
1972 Grad said:
Then why the need to tear something down ?
Click to expand...

Building the monument is a statement. Tearing it down is a statement. Also, many of these monuments are placed on prime real estate. It's not smart government to use valuable land in downtown DC (or wherever) for a statue. Demo and sell the land, give taxpayers a break, and stop worshipping idols.
 
#40
#40
tvolsfan said:
We’re memorializing him for keeping the country together and leading the charge to abolish slavery, not for suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus. You’re going to have to do better than that.
Click to expand...

He didn't keep the country together, his election lead to the country splitting. He pushed for a war that lead to hundreds of thousands to bring it back together. Lincoln is not a man we need to memorialize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia
#41
#41
n_huffhines said:
Building the monument is a statement. Tearing it down is a statement. Also, many of these monuments are placed on prime real estate. It's not smart government to use valuable land in downtown DC (or wherever) for a statue. Demo and sell the land, give taxpayers a break, and stop worshipping idols.
Click to expand...
Some people my age has raised a generation of pu$$ies. You people just look for stuff to get mad about.
 
#43
#43
n_huffhines said:
How about that American freedom fighter, Timothy McVeigh? After all, he had a few valid points about Waco and whatnot.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't bother me either. There hasn't existed a person in history whose statue would faze me in the least. It's a f*****g statue.
 
#45
#45
n_huffhines said:
Building the monument is a statement. Tearing it down is a statement. Also, many of these monuments are placed on prime real estate. It's not smart government to use valuable land in downtown DC (or wherever) for a statue. Demo and sell the land, give taxpayers a break, and stop worshipping idols.
Click to expand...
There is a helluva lot of taxpayer money wasted. That is a minor part of it.
 
#49
#49
n_huffhines said:
If we're being honest about who Lincoln was and what motivated him, he doesn't deserve a monument. His desire was to fortify the strength of the central government and keep the union together and 2% of the country died for that cause, not to mention all the economic turmoil. I don't give a **** how many states we have. I don't think a stronger central government is worth sacrificing 2% of the population.

Think about it like this...would you be willing to have 7 million people die to force California to stay in the United States? I say let them go.
Click to expand...
Not unreasonable, though the slavery angle and it’s role in secession cannot be ignored, either.
 
#50
#50
tvolsfan said:
The fear of losing slavery split the country in two. It was coming no matter what.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was not a certainty. Most people in the south did not benefit from slavery. Buying the slaves' freedom would have been a lot cheaper and less deadly than fighting a war over it, if that were the only point of the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top