A BLACK MANS VIEW ON THE CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS Update pg6

When you play with fire you get burned and what is left behind after the paid resides ? A SCAR

scars are there to remind you of the pain you endured and to guide you from making the same mistake

Excellent, and very insightful rant. Thank you.

What you mean?

You, sir, should have a pulpit and a press conference.

I'd love for you to meet some of the black folks here where I live. You'd find many more who know/think/feel the same way you do. They're tired of all the racial infighting and hatred on all sides...they just want good jobs, to provide for their families, and be able to hold conversations with folks of other color/heritage without hearing the "Uncle Tom" crap thrown at them.

Of course here in far eastern Kentucky, we are ALL fighting the same fight of survival, regardless of skin color. So we try best as we can to help one another.

Keep speaking out, even if you stand alone and your voice is shaking. The only way out of all this mess is to help one another and repair old damages with new hearts.

Agreed. It is about right and wrong. It is about the Constitution. Hell, there are lots of things that offend me, I just found out there is a 16' Lenin statue in Seattle and the offends the *uck out of me....but it is free speech and someone's property (even if that someone is .gov).

If these people want to move monuments....then they should have a valid plan in place to put them in museums, cemeteries, or places that people want them. But just don't take them down and hide them (Like New Orleans did which is shameful).

I remember right after the Charleston shootings and all the Confederate flag hoohah, I saw a black guy with Confederate flags flying on his car, obviously it didn't bother him.

Slavery was a great evil-----------but I disagree that Lincoln deserved to die. JWB was a racist bitch. Lincoln was a flawed man who did what he thought he had to do to save the Union. He originally he just wanted to save the Union but realized that to break the CSA he had to turn it into a war for Union AND freeing the slaves. So he did. He also did a lot of other things that would be considered repugnant and illegal----habeas corpus suspension for one.
Do I condone those-----absolutely not. but if someone had assassinated Jefferson Davis because of "tyranny," would you feel the same way? Lincoln WAS the President. you would have basically every President in American history for devious, evil shit.

I am an Indian citizen. Not white, not Indian aryan even (brown skinned south Indian dravidian actually). And let me tell you this is not about racism as they want you to think. This is about removing your history. It is about stealing your pride. George Soros WANTS you to be good little slaves. Granted they may not have the Presidency or the senate but they still do have the democrat controlled local governments.

It is about removing your history - if they can destroy the way you see the history of your fathers, because you feel ashamed, then they can break you down as you cannot look forward with a vision in life. It is about confusing you. So that you may be better subjects who can willingly be controlled. It is about turning you into becoming less fortunate. it is not about emancipating blacks either but rather bringing your way of life down equal with those who previously were less privileged.

They are vilifying your current president exactly because he stands for history and family values.

Democratic party and MSM are all about divide and rule.

Peace and love to you, my beautiful brothers and sisters.

Your original post was so poignant and perfect, really, and I guess that is why it might scare some asshole into saying the retaliatory, hurtful things you have attempted to dismiss by making this comment....

What's really sad is that you felt the need to make ^^THIS^^ post at all.

FUCK anyone that would even go there in their THOUGHTS, let alone, their comments.

This (fellow Texan) man deserves a



Last Edited by TruthSeeker151 on 08/15/2017 11:25 PM

I agree with you except the Republicans are involved too.

Peace and love to you, too, though.

Well said, OP.

I fully agree with you. Great thread and post!

It's people like you that make the South pretty cool, and hold up more of the traditional American values most still abide by.

I love the South ... and I'm not even a native.

God bless.

..for truth.

I see no color, race, nothing I am blessed my eyes are open. But, even in the bible full chapters were removed why who knows. OP if that day comes I will gladly bear arms with you.

Love it.

That's very honest. Thank you for sharing.

My family did not own slaves. My family was poor as they came, up on lookout mountain between the states of alabama, Tenn, and GA.

My ancestors fought in the civil war not because of slaves but because foreigners were coming and fighting the South. See the North hired foreign mercenaries early on.

They saw the civil war as an invasion.

I heard a lot of stories too, old history, passed down in my family about how General Sherman was so evil, and about how he left everyone to starve. He burnt the area from Chattanooga to Savannah and he didn't care if the homes were union sympathizers or slave owners or what.

He told the soldiers to take any food they could, and burn the gardens. Kill any deer, even if they couldn't use the meat, but they always tried to get the meat back to union troops of course.

Basically many people in the south- civilians, were left with no homes, and no food, and no way to get food. That included the slaves, that were just left with nothing to eat either.

He would send a lot of troops out, and rape was OK. The idea was to make the war be felt so horribly by civilians that the Southern men fighting would feel the strong urge to desert so they could go protect their families and women and children back home.

This is the great Northern Hero. My granny said she'd dig him up just to kill him again. I was also told, repeatedly, that slavery was already going away in the South, that the area around us had turned to sharecroppers, and most of them were coming in from Ireland or poor Southerners were signing up for it. It was working out better than slaves, because they didn't have the social contract with the sharecroppers - they didn't have to feed, clothes, or provide medical care, only a portion of the crops.

Last Edited by Hadriana on 08/15/2017 11:41 PM

OP I saw you on Comedy Central once. Isn't your name Dave Chappelle?

Divide and conquer

Seriously who gives a F?

This is a great post! You are correct, history is what it is and we should learn from it. Every day, we each have a choice how to live our lives. Color really shouldn't matter.

Most of us Trump supporters have similar beliefs too OP. And most of us treat all people with respect, certainly if they give respect they will receive it. Black/white whatever, most of us are just working stiffs, have no real power and just want a decent home, good health, a loving family, safety and some financial security for the future. We fight the good fight every day only asking for our small piece of the pie and the government to stay out of our pie...

Great Post OP! As a Seventh generation Texan I am proud to have you as a fellow Texan!

From what I have learned, it seems that history is misinterpreted by both sides.

The Republican Party was established on an abolitionists platform. So, yes, slavery WAS a major issue.

Now, I don't believe that the party intended to go to war over the issue. It was like any other legal platform issue--to be debated and hopefully changed over time through the legislature. Once the south separated, though, it became another issue that WOULD be resolved through hostilities.

So, it is not true to say Lincoln didn't care about slavery. It is also true, though, that he never intended to free the slaves through proclamation (unconstitutionally), before hostilities started. People point to quotes from Lincoln to this affect as proof he didn't care. Not true. The main purpose of his party was abolition. The original intent was to work constitutionally through the Congress, so you will find quotes (tailored to his audience, like any other politician) promising to not immediately end slavery.

Another point that shows slavery as an issue in the Civil War was from the Southern States' own documents. I don't know about ALL of them, but I have read the Virginia articles of secession, and for sure they DID enunciate legal slavery as a specific reason for secession. Most people who say that slavery "wasn't even why the war started" are not exactly right. The South felt threatened by the Republican platform.

Yes to the issue of taxation v representation, which you stated. The Democrats misrepresent this part of the history, also, though. Part of what they preach to crowds of SJWs is that blacks were "only 3/5 of a man," so the Constitution is evil. That sounds horrible, and so elicits a response. The truth is, the South was trying to argue for more legislative representation based on their population plus the population of their slaves, while in actuality treating their slaves as property with no rights at all.

Just like democrats, this is of course gaming the system. Either your slaves are men with rights who are due representation, or they are property. You can't have it both ways. So the only reason the 3/5 rule exists is because of Democrats. It was a compromise.

Yes to the issue of wealth and money. Southern "aristocrats" were advantaged by slavery--thus lived like kings; while northern business owners paid all of their help, thus couldn't compete in many areas. It only seemed fair to them that the 1% who had the advantage of owning slaves should be taxed on the labor of those slaves in the same way that northern workers had to pay taxes.

I would remind people who decry the founders for owning slaves, that the slavery debate did take place at the Constitutional Convention. The main reason abolition was not written into the Constitution was because the 1st priority in 1776 was to create the Union. All of the southern states would not have signed on with abolition, so it wasn't included.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough though, to include language in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which would give Abraham Lincoln the confidence in his moral authority to free our people almost 100 years later. Don't expect the Marxist universities to teach this.

Another interesting note about Abraham Lincoln--I believe the reason he was murdered was because he planned to get rid of the central banks and return our right to issue currency to the legislature, where it Constitutionally belongs. This is also a freedom issue.

Someone earlier stated that slaves who fought for the South did so because they understood the issues. I don't buy this. They were there because they were serving with their masters. Freed and runaway slaves went North to fight, not south. Even the dirt poor (most of them) whites in the south didn't understand the issues. They fought because they were taught from birth that they were superior--and that the north wanted to give black men jobs that they didn't even have.

The United States was not the first country to outlaw slavery, but we are the only nation to ever fight a war to end it. It was one of the bloodiest wars ever fought, with 500,000 dead Americans--too keep the Union together and YES, to free the slaves once and for all. It is a crime that schools today would rather foment a Marxist revolution than teach history the way that it really happened.

This history is so unique, that it isn't just American history. It is world history, also, and should be treated as such. It is a crime to destroy artifacts that remind us of the agonies as well as the riteousness of our pasts. We should look at who benefits by erasing this history--if the world forgets, it will be repeated.

Thanks for the post. I love this subject! Gave me a chance to rant.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 08/16/2017 12:03 AM

:this1:

Sherman was a butcher and should have been tried for war crimes. He burned my hometown to the ground and a lot of other Southern towns as well. Then during reconstruction the north came in and put the boot on Southerners neck and then wonder why they weren't welcomed with open arms. The carpetbaggers came in and bought land for pennies on the dollar and then started the northern version of slavery known as sharecropping.

Look into the background and long-term history of the most liberal, devoutly pro-Democrat-Party presidents over the past 90 years and the run-of-the-mill racism and bigotry they expressed both in private and public are a window into the mind of the left. I'm not talking about bigotry and racism in the inflated sense of those words today. I'm talking nasty, petty type of bigotry and racism.

For liberals to be so disgusting in racial matters is probably due to their being very lacking in integrity and honesty in general.

This is why the left can witness Sharia-embracing, jihad-tolerating Muslims, know full well what they're are all about - how reactionary they are - and instead of being repulsed by that want to pat Muslims on the head and treat them like sad lost puppies.

Liberals gave the same pity parties to ruthless, bloodthirsty Communist regimes of the past and today.

Notice how liberals, particularly in the media, don't seem all that bothered by the miserable plight of people in leftist Venezuela.



.

Man, been so bummed out the last few days with all this shit. So much dis-info and propaganda out there, so many deluded and controlled people. Thanks OP for the thread and for the responses from all that give me a bit of hope. Good read.

BTW I live a stones throw from Maumee Ohio where that ass-hat drove down from in POS V6 Challenger while cruising around in my Bullitt. I recall seeing him a few times on the road (he lived a half mile from my office). And fuck left tards too...

Sry not a huge Lincoln fan , love what he did and I understand why just not the means in which he got that shit done , let's create votes to get shit passed ..... It's my understanding he created seats and backed the people he wanted in them seats so the push his laws through ? Right or wrong ? I'm no history buff