The Nash Farm Battlefield and Museum, considered by some to be the site of last battle fought for Atlanta, was asked by a county commissioner to remove all confederate flags form the museum. The facility instead announced that it will close June 1st.
There is precious little remaining of the battles fought around Atlanta and the loss of this remaining site will be a blow to what small token of preservation has been saved in the region.
Take away the symbols from one side of a conflict and you no longer have representation of that combatant. The War Between The States becomes The War Against the Strangers.
nope, to me it’s always been…..The War Of Northern Aggression
To the ignorant, this is a victory. To the historically insightful and appreciative about the challenges that built the greatest country on the planet, this is a travesty.
Ignorance wins.
Cultural and racial cleansing. Their message is spreading and like minded progtards are acting accordingly.
Mansfield – the truth for anyone that actually studies the history of it is, it was The War of Northern Aggression.
By definition, a “civil war” is when competing factions fight to take over an existing government system and territory. The Confederacy simply wanted to leave the union and govern themselves in their own territories (which the “union” was always rightly considered a voluntary arrangement that could be dissolved if the people believed the government of the union no longer represented their interests). The Confederate States had no desire to take over the already existing federal government or other states and made no attempt to do so.
The south was no longer a willing participant in “the union” so Lincoln abused the power of the federal government to kill hundreds of thousands of southern people to effectively enslave the rest under a form of involuntary servitude (the very definition of slavery).
Those who control the past, control the future, so down the memory hole with the confederacy.
The guy that ran the museum stated that not only did the imbecilic county commissioner demand that the Confederate flags on the outside of the museum be removed, but also that all the flags inside the museum be removed as well, and they could no longer sell any confederate flags to financially support the museum.
The leftist commissioner claimed that she didn’t demand the removal of all the Confederate flags, but only the ones on the outside (the guy that ran the museum said she is lying). Based on the fact that the museum chose to close is pretty clear evidence to me that the commissioner is lying about her corrupt actions now that a lot of local people are pretty upset about it. I’m sick to death of idiots being so “offended” by history that they have to see it destroyed.
Muslims destroyed Buddha statues, and anything else non-islam. I keep hearing they’re going to blow up the pyramids, but nothing yet. Because nothing exists in history unless it is muslim related. How is it different here? A handful of morons proclaiming nothing exists in history unless it is PC.
So who made this county commissioner Abe Lincoln?
Lincoln didn’t free a single slave with the emancipation proclamation of 1861. The Confederate States of America’s president was Jefferson Davis.
It was the 13th Amendment in 1865 that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except for duly convicted prisoners.
Some people would argue the plain language of the 13th Amendment makes military conscription unconstitutional.
So those anonymous people who bombarded Fort Sumter, that was because the North got aggressive with the South?
Come on now, The South stole federal property when they confiscated arsenals, forts and port facilities through out the South without proper compensation to the owner, the Federal government, before war was ever declared.
Perhaps the Civil War should be known as the War to Recover The Nation’s Stuff Stolen. Maybe we should consider it a police action.
Remove any mention of slavery because it might offend someone and what are you left? A region of the country mugging the rest of the nation?
Remember when Mooch was ranting about changing our history and traditions? Here we are. No different from the tailban blowing up ancient monuments. Makes me furious!
http://theferalirishman.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-real-haters-can-eat-shit-and-die.html
Bravo Dr. Tar … I am a great admirer of R.E.Lee, Thomas Jackson & a myriad of other Confederates … including N.B.Forrest … & am a staunch supporter of the courage & sacrifice of the average Southern soldier
I keep thinking that if Lee took up Lincoln on his offer the ‘civil war’ would have been over within a year … & the ‘Lost Cause’ would have never materialized … of course, if Jackson lived who knows how Gettysburg might have turned out …. what if, indeed
… & I can’t, for the life of me, wrap my head around a bunch of democrats throwing such a hissy-fit because they lost an election …. SHADES OF TODAY!!!
Fair enough.
So, can we white folks in the south start taking down all that slave shit?
And act like that never happened.
Quid pro quo, and all that yanno’?
@Dr. Tar – Prior to the War Against Self-Determination, the more industrialized Northern states had been successfully bleeding the more agricultural Southern states with tariffs for years. The Southerners grabbed some “central” govt property (quotation marks because it was dominated by Northern interests). It came nowhere near the south-to-north wealth transfer via legalized theft.
The cultures of the two regions was very different, perhaps ultimately incompatible. My opinion is that it would have been best for everybody if the CSA had not been invaded and had continued to exist and develop independently. To be sure, the govt of the CSA was full of corruption and bad men, but the same can be well argued about the USA.
Another little piece of me dies inside every time a battle field is turned into a housing project or shopping mall. I’ve been a member of the Civil War Trust for many years and have shed tears of joy and sorrow with our victories and defeats. The preservation of lands paid for with the blood of Americans as historic sights is our cause.
The Democratic Party and their followers are made up of panty waist, civil trial lawyers, labor union flunkies, government employees, big city political machines, the caustic coercive utopians, social justice warriors, the radical environmentalists, feminists, free speech hating, and others who want to restructure history and society with our tax dollars … Progressives suck the big one! Bastages!
If they want to get rid of the -old- Civil War, I say, “replace it with a NEW Civil War.”
We still have some memorials left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marietta_Confederate_Cemetery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_Mountain_National_Battlefield_Park
And a reminder of the treatment from the Yankees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_National_Historic_Site
Remember how few of the population actually participated in the war of independence from England? Do you think those few ended up in charge of the burgeoning national government?
Not likely.
It was the same type of folks that didn’t rebel against England that damn sure wasn’t going to let the southern states, whom they regarded, and used exactly like England did their colonies, any freedom of choice in commerce.
They laid a good ground game in the newspapers of the time about the ‘slavery’ issue, far predating the onset of shooting hostilities.
But the possibility of the south becoming a net overseas exporter and developing industrial capacity was as abhorrent to them as what caused the war of independence from England.
The capitalists of New England were willing to kill to stop this. Just exactly as the Crown was not that far in the past.
History is written by the winners of wars. History is documented by scholars. Careful perusal will assist in shaving closer to the truth.
My fifth grade ‘history’ books were so full of shit they should have been bound in brown covers.
Isn’t this a First Amendment issue? If is a constitutional right to burn an American flag even though that is offensive to many people, why is displaying a flag not equally protected?
“Remember how few of the population actually participated in the war of independence from England?”
Answer: 3%
Don’t think you don’t matter if 97% are on the wrong side of history.
“Dr. Tar May 25, 2017 at 6:24 pm ”
Can you boil that post down some?
I can’t decide if I agree with it or not.
The war was financial in its birth.
Wasn’t about the badness of slavery in itself when it started, but the financial aspect of it.
Dr. Tar – you have it exactly backward as to who was stealing whose stuff. Lincoln was resupplying Ft. Sumter after the southern states (including SC where it was located) after the newly established Confederate government advised him that Ft. Sumter no longer belonged to “the union”. Resupplying the fort was a deliberate, provocative act by Lincoln intended to start a shooting war. The southern ports provided better than 75% of the revenue to the “federal govt.” in tariffs prior to the war, so they had essentially bought and paid for Ft. Sumter (and a lot of other things located north of the Mason Dixon line) to begin with.
Here are a couple of links to a 2 part column by economist Walter Williams that will shed some light on the subject.
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/07/15/historical-ignorance-n2024814
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/07/22/historical-ignorance-ii-n2027721
These brief excerpts shown below from the columns shine a lot of light on the false history that has been taught about the “civil war”.
Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”
From Dadof4: “Don’t think you don’t matter if 97% are on the wrong side of history.”
I don’t see “sides of history”. There is the popular account and then there are actual events that occurred. They aren’t ‘sides’ per say.
One is propaganda written by the victor which is their right down through recorded history, the other is often categorized as wailing by the loser.
What makes this particular conflict interesting is that newspapers existed then. And survived long enough for their accounts to be available to researchers much later.
They should have burned those news tombs if they wanted the propaganda to remain coherent.The aggressors outed themselves in cheap newsprint. T
Republican Party Platform of 1860
“3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population; its surprising development of material resources; its rapid augmentation of wealth; its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, …. and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions … in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons – in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, …”
… and the kicker ….
“8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no “person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.”
you can say it’s financial, Northern Aggression …. whatever … the underlying cause of the Civil War was slavery & the cowardice of the US Government to confront the problem before it got to war … we witness the same situations today
history ALWAYS repeats … this ain’t gonna end pretty folks
Dad, I think we can all agree that the war officially kicked off with the shelling of Fort Sumter in 1861. Prior to that, as the Southern states illegally seceded from the Union they had so willingly joined and had benefited from access to Northern markets, industry and federal largess, those same states occupied and looted the various federal facilities through the South as they left the Union.
When a recognized nation takes property of foreigners without proper compensation today it’s called expropriation and the aggrieved parties can seek compensation.
In short, when the South left the Union they not only broke their sacred vows and broke the bonds of brotherhood with their fellow Americans, they also stole from the rest of the country when they took what didn’t belong to them.
Whether a person of the time disagreed with the South’s “peculiar institution” or not, you just can’t let people declare they’re not playing anymore and take everything they can get their hands on before leaving.
“You have a right to hide from history, but no right to hide history from the rest of us.” ~ Shelby Foote
It may have kicked off then, but why was there a conflict in the first place? Seems micro-focused and ignoring the larger picture.
“illegally seceded” Please describe a legal secession.
I actually like you, Dr Tar. I am not someone who seeks conflict with you – so, honest questions.
From ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ :
“the underlying cause of the Civil War was slavery”
I’m sorry dude, but we seem to have a difference of opinion on this likely irreconcilable. Spent the better part of a decade looking into the issue and expended real money for access to records public and private. Long sit downs in conversation with serious historians.
I know that slavery has been offered up and accepted today as the issue. At the start of the war, it was actually a very minor aspect but was used in the popular press at the time as justification.
The media in their day was as pliable and biased as we have today. Human nature has seen no revolutions what so ever.
@ Lowell
“I don’t see “sides of history”. ”
Aren’t we talking about the American revolution in that statement? Are you saying we were wrong for revolting against England?
Dad, how about when Slovakia left the Czech Republic or South Sudan split away from Sudan or Eritrea left Ethiopia?
Those are all examples where peoples agree to separate. There are those who want Scotland to leave the U.K. They have recognized provisions within the U.K. for allowing such secession.
Our Constitution has no provision for leaving the Union, only for joining it. It also didn’t use to have provisions for black men to vote, women to vote and other aspects of the original document that was changed with time.
If the South wanted to legally leave the Union then they should have pursued having that Amendment added to the Constitution, not just go storming off and taking what didn’t belong to them in big huff.
Ok. That seems to jump the shark, to me, Dr Tar.
Why would there need to be an amendment to leave?
The joining did not require you couldn’t leave, as far as I can tell.
Maybe I’m wrong. Please point it out where no one can leave. I’m willing to learn. Is it like a street gang that you have to die if you want to leave?
@Lowell ~ we can point & oounterpoint all night long w/ each side arguing valid points … spent the better part of my life looking into this subject, & have a voluminous library to show for it (my local used-book seller regularly sets aside serious ‘tombs’ for my purchase)
if you don’t think slavery was an issue for the South to succeed, then so be it.
& we’ve had the ‘media’ since at least Rome
I’ll take the words of a grandchild of former slaves whom I worked with on the problem of ‘who started the Civil War’… “don’t start no shit … won’t be no shit”
… & remember a revolution is nothing more than a complete circle
“Only repeated, multiplied oppressions placing it beyond all doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government” ~ John Adams
Dad, to be recognized as legal by the nation being separated from there needs to be either provisions within the founding documents allowing a member to leave or a war for independence won.
For example, how is Britain able to get out of the EU? Because there’s a provision within the agreements that make up the EU that allows a nation to vote itself out.
There is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution and there never was. There are however 27 amendments to the founding document. If the South wanted to legally leave the states they should have banned together and had an amendment to the Constitution allowing for a separation from the union. After all they did manage to get the Northern states to allow them to recover slaves in the North and they were able to get the Northerners to give up the Kansas Nebraska Act and instead throw all the new states open to the expansion of slaver thanks to Stephen A. Douglas and popular sovereignty.
Now in all honesty I make the Constitutional amendment argument half in jest, but still serious about the necessity if the Southern states wanted to leave the Union. I mean the part about the South stealing federal property and it was a key aspect of the North justifying the war.
Lincoln never intended to free the existing slaves of the South, at least in his life time. He merely want to put the limits back on its expansion and work to strangle it over time.
This War of Northern Aggression stuff is charming, but as a Northern from the state that put the majority of regiments into the Iron Brigade and gave the Union Arthur MacArthur, senior, I just can’t let it go this time.
On Liberty
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/on-liberty/
Many Great articles.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/
On Liberty
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/on-liberty/
Many Great articles.
The underlying reason for the Civil War was State’s Rights.
How the Southern states wanted to operate was against how the Northern states wanted to rule.
Like Dad said, I too like you Dr. Tar but you aren’t making much sense here. It was always understood by the people that wrote and signed the Constitution that states were free to leave the union if they so desired and some of the writings at the time noted this. The states had to ratify the Constitution at the time it was drafted.
Do you really think any state would ratify an agreement that formed a “union” of individual states that could never be revoked under any circumstances? The states maintained their independence to some degree as reflected by the 10th Amendment among other places. If the intent was to create a nation that could never “legally” dissolve, why would the states retain their identities at all?
@Do4 ~ “..when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change.” – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall
… & I won’t even begin to go into ‘Texas vs. White’ 74 U.S. 700
@Dr. Tar — Love you, but as a seventh generation native Atlantan, whose great grandmother sat on her grandmother’s front porch watching the burning of Atlanta, I will respectfully disagree with your Northern take on the Civil War.
this is a great discussion … I offer one more brain fart … let’s not confuse the right to revolt (explicit in the Constitution) with the right to succeed
@jclady … lmao!!! … spoken in the true demeanor of Aunt PittyPat
@jclady ~ didn’t mean that disrespectfully 😉
Take a look at the the discussion above. A hotly debated topic by any measure.
I’ll put the people here up against any group you care to corral to actually TALK about an issue without it devolving into base and vile argument.
I love you guys.
Lowell
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ – Couldn’t secession be considered the ultimate form of revolt? We’re so fed up with a central government located hundreds of miles away taking our money while trying to force their view of how to live on us that we’re not even going to bother to fight with ya …… you can just kiss our grit grindin’ arses.
@BBro ~ absolutely one could say what you have juxtaposed … but it’s the same argument that children have against their parents … all the time?
where does this argument end?
… guess we’re all an island unto ourselves …
When they get through with the elimination of the confederate flags and monuments they’ll be coming for the American flag and the hero’s of the Revolutionary war and the founding fathers because they owned slaves too. These people hate America and everything it stands for.
@TrickDick ~ absolutely … this eradication is just a starting point for the progtards
@ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ — No offense taken. 🙂
I have tried repeatedly to pot (8) times to no avail.
Here is an excellent resource:
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/
PS: The South was right
Had relatives on both sides.
Dr Tar,
I don’t know who you are, but you are wrong with every statement. Read some of Clyde Wikson.
Now, I am offended by MLK and want all of his stuff removed.
@ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ –
1st point. Interesting that you should cite John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice, in this discussion of the constitutionality of secession. I say that because Marshall’s court, in Marbury v Madison, proclaimed the doctrine of judicial review, a power not granted by the Constitution.
Whether the role of the Supremes in judicial review is a good thing or a bad thing is a separate issue here. What is the issue is that by and large the rest of the central govt has recognized the doctrine even though it should have been established by constitutional amendment rather than by the decision of four justices (Marshall, Paterson, Chase, Washington).
2nd point. By stating that secession was illegal because there was no provision for it in the Constitution suggests all of the contemporary documentation, including the Federalist Papers, are incorrect on the question. Secession was a matter of open discussion, and you will find that most argued that any State could disassociate itself if its legislature so decided. See Federalist 45 by Madison, stating the general case:
The important Constitutional aspect is that it does not prohibit states from seceding.