Christopher Columbus statue vandalized in Houston last night

[BS Wildcats]

8 minutes ago, westend1 said:

So you grew up in a poor black neighborhood?  I think you are lying

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking.  I never read where he said he grew up in a poor black neighborhood.

[BS Wildcats]

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

 

10 minutes ago, westend1 said:

 

[BS Wildcats]

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

Columbus means nothing and did nothing. Would not mess with his statue though because its not my property. 

The statues that people are destroying are not on these people's property so they should let them be.  I hope they lock the idiots up that destroyed the statue in NC.

[new tobie]

5 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

The statues that people are destroying are not on these people's property so they should let them be.  I hope they lock the idiots up that destroyed the statue in NC.

That's why i made the statement about its not on my property. to me columbus day means day off. Thats it.

[westend1]

13 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking.  I never read where he said he grew up in a poor black neighborhood.

User name checks out

[new tobie]

Just saw the a Trump speech where he claimed to not know who david Duke was are what white supremacy was. Biggest liar ever!

[baddog]

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

Slavery happened, get over it. Says the folks that can't let go of Colin Kapernick kneeling for the national anthem 

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

 

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

 

6 hours ago, westend1 said:

 

Yes, get over it. It was over many moons ago. You didn't get the memo?

Kaepernick had nothing at all to do with my statement. Here's a crybaby black guy, raised by white people and shows no more respect than that? Who cares if he plays? He sucks like a lot of also rans.

[new tobie]

19 minutes ago, baddog said:

Yes, get over it. It was over many moons ago. You didn't get the memo?

Kaepernick had nothing at all to do with my statement. Here's a crybaby black guy, raised by white people and shows no more respect than that? Who cares if he plays? He sucks like a lot of also rans.

says a guy who supports a team that hasn't been to the superbowl in 22 years and calls themselves Americas team.

[BS Wildcats]

35 minutes ago, westend1 said:

User name checks out

5 hours ago, new tobie said:

 

[BS Wildcats]

37 minutes ago, westend1 said:

User name checks out

?

[baddog]

23 minutes ago, new tobie said:

says a guy who supports a team that hasn't been to the superbowl in 22 years and calls themselves Americas team.

And yours has? What does that have to do with anything? I missed the parallels.

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, westend1 said:

Probably not.  Unless you are black

And uneducated. 

[westend1]

4 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

And uneducated. 

You mean like the trump base?  Agreed

[BS Wildcats]

8 minutes ago, westend1 said:

You mean like the trump base?  Agreed

obama's base wasn't much better.  they voted that dumbarse in twice

[team first]

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

So you grew up in a poor black neighborhood?  I think you are lying

Where did u get that from. That was simply showing you that you are the one who brought it up. Good day sir 

[CardinalBacker]

4 minutes ago, westend1 said:

You mean like the trump base?  Agreed

Robert E Lee opposed slavery. He freed the slaves on his plantation (which later became the Arlington National Cemetery) before the war, educated black children (which was illegal at the time), and was a decorated general in the US Army before and after the Civil War. He even taught at West Point. 

At the time of the Civil War, the majority of governing power was centralized in state governments instead of the federal government. It's hard for people to imagine today, but in the mid 1800s state governments played a much larger role in everyday life. The federal government was only 70 years old at the time of the civil war. Most states had been members of the US for an even shorter period than that. If I'm not mistaken, Texas had joined the Union less than 20 years before the war broke out. Leaving the union didn't seem to be the "traitorous" or "treasonous" act that it seems to be today. 

Robert E Lee was a patriot and unfortunately was a major landowner in the self-glossed Commonwealth of Virginia at the time that they decided to secede. 

People who claim that the civil war was primarily about slavery are taking a very simplified view on a very complex subject. The Emancipation Proclamation enacted by the federal government in the North freed slaves, but only those in the South. Slaves in the North weren't freed by the Federal Government until much later. If it truly fought over slavery, then why didn't the North free their own slaves until later? Seems to me that Northern slaves would have been freed first, not last, if the North was truly fighting just to end slavery. 

But why let actual history get in the way of a good story. 

[PAMFAM10]

37 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Robert E Lee opposed slavery. He freed the slaves on his plantation (which later became the Arlington National Cemetery) before the war, educated black children (which was illegal at the time), and was a decorated general in the US Army before and after the Civil War. He even taught at West Point. 

At the time of the Civil War, the majority of governing power was centralized in state governments instead of the federal government. It's hard for people to imagine today, but in the mid 1800s state governments played a much larger role in everyday life. The federal government was only 70 years old at the time of the civil war. Most states had been members of the US for an even shorter period than that. If I'm not mistaken, Texas had joined the Union less than 20 years before the war broke out. Leaving the union didn't seem to be the "traitorous" or "treasonous" act that it seems to be today. 

Robert E Lee was a patriot and unfortunately was a major landowner in the self-glossed Commonwealth of Virginia at the time that they decided to secede. 

People who claim that the civil war was primarily about slavery are taking a very simplified view on a very complex subject. The Emancipation Proclamation enacted by the federal government in the North freed slaves, but only those in the South. Slaves in the North weren't freed by the Federal Government until much later. If it truly fought over slavery, then why didn't the North free their own slaves until later? Seems to me that Northern slaves would have been freed first, not last, if the North was truly fighting just to end slavery. 

But why let actual history get in the way of a good story. 

No the civil war was mostly to do with slaves everyone knew what Lincoln being elected meant for this nation. Within a few short months 7 states turned their back on this nation others will follow. War will be waged because the south whole economic power all tied into slaves was about to come to a end.

robert e lee and any other confederate soldier are not American heros maybe confederate heros but call me silly but I believe we have enough American hero deserving of statues then traitors who waged war on their own countrymen. 

Removing a statue is not changing history it will not fix the problems and the black communities it will not end racism in America. 

Its just common sense to me. Why glorify terroist.

[westend1]

53 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Robert E Lee opposed slavery. He freed the slaves on his plantation (which later became the Arlington National Cemetery) before the war, educated black children (which was illegal at the time), and was a decorated general in the US Army before and after the Civil War. He even taught at West Point. 

At the time of the Civil War, the majority of governing power was centralized in state governments instead of the federal government. It's hard for people to imagine today, but in the mid 1800s state governments played a much larger role in everyday life. The federal government was only 70 years old at the time of the civil war. Most states had been members of the US for an even shorter period than that. If I'm not mistaken, Texas had joined the Union less than 20 years before the war broke out. Leaving the union didn't seem to be the "traitorous" or "treasonous" act that it seems to be today. 

Robert E Lee was a patriot and unfortunately was a major landowner in the self-glossed Commonwealth of Virginia at the time that they decided to secede. 

People who claim that the civil war was primarily about slavery are taking a very simplified view on a very complex subject. The Emancipation Proclamation enacted by the federal government in the North freed slaves, but only those in the South. Slaves in the North weren't freed by the Federal Government until much later. If it truly fought over slavery, then why didn't the North free their own slaves until later? Seems to me that Northern slaves would have been freed first, not last, if the North was truly fighting just to end slavery. 

But why let actual history get in the way of a good story. 

Emancipation in the south was done by executive order to help the war effort.   A constitutional amendment had been in the works for some time and was passed around the time the war ended.  Anyone who thinks slavery was not the central issue doesn't understand much about the years leading to the war

[77]

7 hours ago, new tobie said:

Who did neo Nazis and kkk vote for. Which candidate would slave owners have voted for. Slave owners were domestic terrorist. 

you own people were the biggest slave traders there was!

 

9 hours ago, westend1 said:

Yeah, and hitler died before you were born.  What is the point?   That things which don't personally affect you shouldn't bother someone else?

9 hours ago, westend1 said:

Yeah, and hitler died before you were born.  What is the point?   That things which don't personally affect you shouldn't bother someone else?

you cant erase what happened but you do have to learn to live with it. vandalizing anything will not change history for me or you. One must be able to forgive the wrongs done to you are you will never have peace. I am not a young man by any means and I went to school all the way through with black kids that had the exact same opportunities I had. Was slavery bad you bet but it was  and and everyone should  learn not to repeat it and move on. All the nonsense only divides the nation more. By the way I think the nazis and the klan are cowards just like the blm and antifa . anyone that covers their face to supposedly rally is up to no good.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

Emancipation in the south was done by executive order to help the war effort.   A constitutional amendment had been in the works for some time and was passed around the time the war ended.  Anyone who thinks slavery was not the central issue doesn't understand much about the years leading to the war

So why wasn't an executive order issued for the Northern slaves at the same time? Those people remained enslaved. 

I'll give you a hint... the US government didn't care about freeing slaves... ol' Honest Abe was solely interested in disrupting production of slave-made war goods in the South. If the North was truly fighting to free the slaves, they would have been freed in the North before the war ever started. 

Of course slavery was a key issue in the dispute over states' rights. But pretending that the war was fought solely over slavery by people who were either for it (South) or against it (North) is as silly as claiming the Revolutionary War was fought over stamp prices. 

There was enough common sense around 150 years ago that people realized that reconciliation and cooperation were the keys to rebuilding a strong union. Its kinda funny how suddenly after the 2016 Election you have Democrats realizing that they have seemingly forever lost the support of the South, suddenly wanting to punish Southerns by branding them all as racists. 

 

[PhatMack19]

5 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

No the civil war was mostly to do with slaves everyone knew what Lincoln being elected meant for this nation. Within a few short months 7 states turned their back on this nation others will follow. War will be waged because the south whole economic power all tied into slaves was about to come to a end.

robert e lee and any other confederate soldier are not American heros maybe confederate heros but call me silly but I believe we have enough American hero deserving of statues then traitors who waged war on their own countrymen. 

Removing a statue is not changing history it will not fix the problems and the black communities it will not end racism in America. 

Its just common sense to me. Why glorify terroist.

Read up on the Morrill Tariff.  That had more to do with the start of the war than slavery.  

[westend1]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So why wasn't an executive order issued for the Northern slaves at the same time? Those people remained enslaved. 

I'll give you a hint... the US government didn't care about freeing slaves... ol' Honest Abe was solely interested in disrupting production of slave-made war goods in the South. If the North was truly fighting to free the slaves, they would have been freed in the North before the war ever started. 

Of course slavery was a key issue in the dispute over states' rights. But pretending that the war was fought solely over slavery by people who were either for it (South) or against it (North) is as silly as claiming the Revolutionary War was fought over stamp prices. 

There was enough common sense around 150 years ago that people realized that reconciliation and cooperation were the keys to rebuilding a strong union. Its kinda funny how suddenly after the 2016 Election you have Democrats realizing that they have seemingly forever lost the support of the South, suddenly wanting to punish Southerns by branding them all as racists. 

 

But it was the south that wanted to keep slavery.  They saw the handwriting on the wall.   The Missouri compromise wasn't enough to satisfy the south.  They were afraid that emancipation was coming so they tried to bail

[PhatMack19]

13 minutes ago, westend1 said:

But it was the south that wanted to keep slavery.  They saw the handwriting on the wall.   The Missouri compromise wasn't enough to satisfy the south.  They were afraid that emancipation was coming so they tried to bail

Prior to the Civil War there was no income tax. Govt was funded by tariffs which the South paid a great proportion.  When the Manufacturing North passed the Morrill Tariff and increases the tax rate from 15% to 37% then 47%, the South said see you later.  Lincoln realized he couldn't fund the govt without the Tariff revenue that the South accounted for 87% of.  Boom Civil War.....

 

Thats the Cliff's notes version.  The Civil War was fought over money, not slavery.  

[CardinalBacker]

3 minutes ago, westend1 said:

But it was the south that wanted to keep slavery.  They saw the handwriting on the wall.   The Missouri compromise wasn't enough to satisfy the south.  They were afraid that emancipation was coming so they tried to bail

The North didn't have a problem with slavery, either, or they'd have freed their own slaves. But that's not what they did, now is it?

At the end of the day, the location where you and your family lived and owned property played the main deciding factor on which side of the conflict you found yourself. 

Think about it. Let's assume you were a landowner in Texas, which joined the union in December of 1845. Fifteen years later (1861) the Federal government is trying to impose much more authority over the people of the State of Texas than the government of the Republic of Texas ever had. What would you do? Abandon your land and head North in a show of solidarity to this new, over-reaching goverment, or stay home and join with your friends and family to defend your home?

Too many people who never owned slaves died too close to home to ever paint all Southerners as traitors who just wanted to keep the institution of slavery in place. 

[westend1]

21 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The North didn't have a problem with slavery, either, or they'd have freed their own slaves. But that's not what they did, now is it?

At the end of the day, the location where you and your family lived and owned property played the main deciding factor on which side of the conflict you found yourself. 

Think about it. Let's assume you were a landowner in Texas, which joined the union in December of 1845. Fifteen years later (1861) the Federal government is trying to impose much more authority over the people of the State of Texas than the government of the Republic of Texas ever had. What would you do? Abandon your land and head North in a show of solidarity to this new, over-reaching goverment, or stay home and join with your friends and family to defend your home?

Too many people who never owned slaves died too close to home to ever paint all Southerners as traitors who just wanted to keep the institution of slavery in place. 

Yeah.  They did.  Look, you can google "cause of civil war" and try to pick out the most reputable looking sites and 9 out of 10 will say it was the issue of slavery that caused the south to try to secede.  I'll go with that.  I get that it makes southerners feel better to try and revise that history, but it's just not true.  Anyhow, I won't convince you and neither will all those historians so I am done with it. Believe what makes you feel good