Greetings and Salutations everyone!
On Friday, June 30th, the following story titled: Confederate Monuments and the Fourth of July appeared in the Chicago Tribune written by columnist and anti-Confederate heritage regressive Mr. Steve Chapman -- who also claims to be a Confederate descendant of a noted general no less!
Confederate descendants who reject their ancestry, and take pains to point out their disgust with it are my favorite Leftist regressives to take apart, as I have mentioned previous on this blog.
The subject of the recent acts of cultural genocide against symbols of Confederate heritage with the removal of several Confederate monuments in a few major cities in the South prompted this story, complete with all of the usual bullshit arguments advanced by these regressive Leftists and cultural vandals included. So I thought now would be the best opportunity to go through them point-by-point and have a little fun completely discrediting one of these arrogant regressive trolls in the process.
As always my responses to the article are written in Confederate Red. Enjoy:
Confederate monuments and theFourth of July
Independence Day....I hate when people just use the date. Give it the respect it deserves dude!
On Friday, June 30th, the following story titled: Confederate Monuments and the Fourth of July appeared in the Chicago Tribune written by columnist and anti-Confederate heritage regressive Mr. Steve Chapman -- who also claims to be a Confederate descendant of a noted general no less!
Confederate descendants who reject their ancestry, and take pains to point out their disgust with it are my favorite Leftist regressives to take apart, as I have mentioned previous on this blog.
The subject of the recent acts of cultural genocide against symbols of Confederate heritage with the removal of several Confederate monuments in a few major cities in the South prompted this story, complete with all of the usual bullshit arguments advanced by these regressive Leftists and cultural vandals included. So I thought now would be the best opportunity to go through them point-by-point and have a little fun completely discrediting one of these arrogant regressive trolls in the process.
As always my responses to the article are written in Confederate Red. Enjoy:
Confederate monuments and the
Independence Day....I hate when people just use the date. Give it the respect it deserves dude!
In 1871, the city of Richmond, Va., publicly celebrated the Fourth of
July. It was an unfamiliar experience. There had been no general
commemoration of Independence Day since 1860 — before Virginia had
seceded from the nation that was formed in 1776. Not entirely true and I will demonstrate why shortly.
Other Southern
cities were not ready to resume participation in our national ritual.
Actually many places did do so during the War itself, and I would point out that New England does not own Independence Day, six Southern States: Georgia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina and especially my home state of South Carolina had a big role in maintaining the independence that day commemorates. Few people from any of those States at the time denied that at all. Cheraw became the first place in post-Civil War South Carolina to do so,
in 1891. Jackson, Miss., waited until 1901 to hold a reading of the
Declaration of Independence on the occasion. Vicksburg, Miss., didn't
join the party until 1945.
Staunch supporters of the Lost Cause had little fondness for the United States. The Stars and Stripes was the banner of their enemy. At the time the banner of what was then an invading country, yes. When Union troops occupied Richmond in April 1865, the first thing they did was hoist theAmerican United States flag over the
capitol. Um, that is generally what happens when someone takes an enemy position.
The die-hards recognized what some modern Southerners miss: the deep contradiction between loving America and revering the Confederacy.
Wow guess somebody failed to inform THESE proud (and dare I say "die-hard"?) Confederate Veterans about this alleged "contradiction" between loving America and honoring their service. Buddy, your paradigms are completely hollow.
I would also add something that I have stated time and time again on this blog, something that modern regressive Leftists always fail to get: that loving America and Federal power are NOT THE SAME DAMN THING! Again y'all have no monopoly on defining what it means to BE an American.
Now let's come to the sad and silly point of this article.
The struggle over what to do with monuments to rebel leaders is a conflict between those who think what they did was admirable or heroic and those who think it was disgraceful.
I wouldn't put it in those terms exactly, all I would say is that they were not wrong to defend their home and independence from an invader and I don't apologize for that service. I would say I think their courage and heroism was admirable under the circumstances. Beyond that I do not advocate for war, even though I admire the men -- ON BOTH SIDES -- who fought.
My long-dead relatives include several men who fought for the South. One was Gen. Leonidas Polk, who commanded troops in several major battles before being killed in action. He was not the last person to illustrate that fallibility runs in the family. Nope, so far you are doing a good job demonstrating a great deal of fallibility in your research and weak attempt at propaganda.
In 1961, when I was a boy in the West Texas city of Midland, a new high school opened. It was named after Robert E. Lee, for reasons that are obvious: White resentment of the civil rights movement had produced widespread nostalgia for the Confederacy. San Antonio's Lee High School opened in 1958; Houston's in 1962. So are you about to provide evidence for your arrogant assumption that those things were done in defiance of civil rights, rather than in commemoration for the upcoming Civil War Centennial celebrations happening at the same time? Humm?
Midland Lee called its sports teams the Rebels and used the Confederate battle flag as its symbol. Black students didn't mind, because there weren't any. They attended a segregated black school. Nice virtue signaling there.
The general did have a connection to Texas. His last U.S. Army command before the Civil War was at a fort in the Hill Country town of Mason — which has no Lee monument. Gerald Gamel, editor of the Mason County News, ascribes the omission to strong anti-secession sentiment in Mason. That tells you something about why other places honor Confederate heroes. It tells me something, but I am certain you and I don't share the same conclusions fella.
His role comes to mind because of a recent rally in defense of a statue of him in Houston, which supposedly was under threat from leftists because he owned slaves. Armed counter-protesters, many expressing secessionist views, showed up on the appointed date. But the threat was a hoax, and Houston's self-styled defenders apparently didn't know that he saw disunion as treason.
Reality check: the monument defenders who showed up -- a couple of which I know well from facebook -- did so because it was the right thing to do. The destruction of those monuments is wrong-thinking virtue signaling garbage, pure and simple. Trust me they were well aware of Sam Houston's contributions to American heritage, the existence of the modern State of Texas, and his opposition to secession at the time. They just did it to defend history, that is what you miss. Some of these same people would have done the same had some group of vandals decided a statue to Martin Luther King Jr. or some other Civil Rights icon was subject to attack.
It was. Yet grand memorials were erected across the South to celebrate what the traitors did. Secession was not legally treason until a US Supreme Court case (White Vs. Texas) ruled it unconstitutional four years AFTER the War ended. There was no court case that ruled either in favor of, nor against secession prior to that, and the US Constitution did not specifically make secession either legal or illegal. The monuments were built by whites at a time when blacks had no political power — a condition those whites were desperate to preserve.
LMAO! Oh wow! Um fella, you might wanna read the following account of the erection of one of these monuments:
In Mississippi on February 1, 1890, an appropriation for a monument to the Confederate dead was being considered. A delegate had just spoken against the bill, when John F. Harris, a Black Republican delegate from Washington, county, rose to speak:
“Mr. Speaker! I have risen in my place to offer a few words on the bill.
I have come from a sick bed. Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come. But sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own.
I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentlemen from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier would go on record as opposed to the erections of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines, and in the Seven Day’s fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with mangled forms of those who fought for this country and their country’s honor, he would not have made the speech.
When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made not requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered.
Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed for four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.
When my Mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of Mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my old Missus! Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in HONOR OF THE CONFEDERATE DEAD.”
When the applause died down, the measure passed overwhelmingly, and every Black member voted “AYE.”
The sources for this story -- which is very much in the historical record of Mississippi State Legislature -- can be found HERE.
In addition to your ill-informed statements, black Southerners themselves often times donated money towards the erection of these monuments of their own free will, even helped raise said money through bake sales, church fundraisers, ect. Well, you would know that if you were not trying to peddle some bullshit argument in the first place.
They failed, and they deserved to fail. God and the resources and fighting abilities of Union generals in the late period of the War saw to it they did at any rate. It's only fitting that Southerners who reject the legacies of slavery, secession and Jim Crow would prefer to be rid of these tributes to them. One cannot reject history, or the legacy of it. Even if you could somehow equate the removal of these monuments with those acts -- you cannot and have failed to do so effectively -- their removal won't alter American history. The only thing these acts seem to serve is a chance for you, a white Leftist regressive "ally" and self-hater to pat yourself on the back and claim you are not a bigot....which makes you an even bigger fool than I already think you are.
It's not a symptom of modern political correctness. Uh, yeah it is. Days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a New York mob destroyed a statue of King George III. LOL oh this argument again. You are aware that at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed King George III was STILL ALIVE. Tearing down the statue was meant to show him that the Crown no longer ruled the colonies. Confederate monuments by contrast were put up to honor long dead people out of respect and closure for the families who lost loved ones in the War. There is a big gaping difference between the two, are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it?
If the men and women of the Revolution were eager to be rid of the images of those who had oppressed them and made war on America, why should African-Americans in the South feel differently about statues of leaders who fought to keep their race in chains? So now like all white Leftist regressive "allies" YOU claim to speak for all African-Americans in the South? Sorry but no son, that dog don't hunt. Be sure to check out some more really nifty photographic examples for why you are full of shit: HERE.
For a long time, American history was owned by white men and minimized the treatment of blacks, women, Indians and Latinos. Yeah AMERICAN history was, not just Southern history. Accommodating our public spaces to their full citizenship doesn't erase history. Oh is that what you call it? I call it regression on the march. It fills in parts that had been shamefully omitted. So....removing something fills something? Um, you ever looked in a dictionary dude?
The Confederate monuments belong not in places of honor but in museums, as artifacts of past error. Your opinion, and thankfully not one shared by a significant majority in this country. They were put up to enshrine an interpretation of the past that has been discredited. See above showing why your conclusions are in error. Taking them down and putting up different statues AH! So you DO wanna fill something in? Ok, gotcha! is a reminder that in understanding the past, we shape the future. No you intellectual retard, understanding the past tells us where we have been.
If there's a statue of my relative Leonidas Polk honoring his Confederate leadership, There is indeed -- and as someone who claims knowledge of family history I'm shocked you don't know that....unless your family history isn't as fabricated as the rest of your opinion piece? I'm willing to see it pulled down. In fact, I'd like to be there to help. And I'm certain it would help you feel you have made up for some inadequacy in your shallow existence....for about two minutes or so.
Well folks, there you have it, another regressive, self-hating Confederate "descendant" called out and his narratives taken apart by the truth. In doing so I hope I have helped many of y'all learn more about why those of us who are proud descendants of Confederate soldiers continue to honor them, and more about the character of those who seek to protect and preserve historical truth rather than those who seek to take it apart with a sledge hammer.
Have a Happy Independence Day 2017 Y'all!
 |
| Humm, well dude, looks like SOME Confederates didn't quite follow this BS paradigm you are trying to peddle. Won't argue about the others since some people did in fact refuse to celebrate the 4th until the Spanish-American War (1898). The War Between The States did cause some really bitter feelings all around. |
Staunch supporters of the Lost Cause had little fondness for the United States. The Stars and Stripes was the banner of their enemy. At the time the banner of what was then an invading country, yes. When Union troops occupied Richmond in April 1865, the first thing they did was hoist the
The die-hards recognized what some modern Southerners miss: the deep contradiction between loving America and revering the Confederacy.
Wow guess somebody failed to inform THESE proud (and dare I say "die-hard"?) Confederate Veterans about this alleged "contradiction" between loving America and honoring their service. Buddy, your paradigms are completely hollow.
I would also add something that I have stated time and time again on this blog, something that modern regressive Leftists always fail to get: that loving America and Federal power are NOT THE SAME DAMN THING! Again y'all have no monopoly on defining what it means to BE an American.
Now let's come to the sad and silly point of this article.
The struggle over what to do with monuments to rebel leaders is a conflict between those who think what they did was admirable or heroic and those who think it was disgraceful.
I wouldn't put it in those terms exactly, all I would say is that they were not wrong to defend their home and independence from an invader and I don't apologize for that service. I would say I think their courage and heroism was admirable under the circumstances. Beyond that I do not advocate for war, even though I admire the men -- ON BOTH SIDES -- who fought.
My long-dead relatives include several men who fought for the South. One was Gen. Leonidas Polk, who commanded troops in several major battles before being killed in action. He was not the last person to illustrate that fallibility runs in the family. Nope, so far you are doing a good job demonstrating a great deal of fallibility in your research and weak attempt at propaganda.
In 1961, when I was a boy in the West Texas city of Midland, a new high school opened. It was named after Robert E. Lee, for reasons that are obvious: White resentment of the civil rights movement had produced widespread nostalgia for the Confederacy. San Antonio's Lee High School opened in 1958; Houston's in 1962. So are you about to provide evidence for your arrogant assumption that those things were done in defiance of civil rights, rather than in commemoration for the upcoming Civil War Centennial celebrations happening at the same time? Humm?
Midland Lee called its sports teams the Rebels and used the Confederate battle flag as its symbol. Black students didn't mind, because there weren't any. They attended a segregated black school. Nice virtue signaling there.
The general did have a connection to Texas. His last U.S. Army command before the Civil War was at a fort in the Hill Country town of Mason — which has no Lee monument. Gerald Gamel, editor of the Mason County News, ascribes the omission to strong anti-secession sentiment in Mason. That tells you something about why other places honor Confederate heroes. It tells me something, but I am certain you and I don't share the same conclusions fella.
His role comes to mind because of a recent rally in defense of a statue of him in Houston, which supposedly was under threat from leftists because he owned slaves. Armed counter-protesters, many expressing secessionist views, showed up on the appointed date. But the threat was a hoax, and Houston's self-styled defenders apparently didn't know that he saw disunion as treason.
Reality check: the monument defenders who showed up -- a couple of which I know well from facebook -- did so because it was the right thing to do. The destruction of those monuments is wrong-thinking virtue signaling garbage, pure and simple. Trust me they were well aware of Sam Houston's contributions to American heritage, the existence of the modern State of Texas, and his opposition to secession at the time. They just did it to defend history, that is what you miss. Some of these same people would have done the same had some group of vandals decided a statue to Martin Luther King Jr. or some other Civil Rights icon was subject to attack.
It was. Yet grand memorials were erected across the South to celebrate what the traitors did. Secession was not legally treason until a US Supreme Court case (White Vs. Texas) ruled it unconstitutional four years AFTER the War ended. There was no court case that ruled either in favor of, nor against secession prior to that, and the US Constitution did not specifically make secession either legal or illegal. The monuments were built by whites at a time when blacks had no political power — a condition those whites were desperate to preserve.
LMAO! Oh wow! Um fella, you might wanna read the following account of the erection of one of these monuments:
In Mississippi on February 1, 1890, an appropriation for a monument to the Confederate dead was being considered. A delegate had just spoken against the bill, when John F. Harris, a Black Republican delegate from Washington, county, rose to speak:
“Mr. Speaker! I have risen in my place to offer a few words on the bill.
I have come from a sick bed. Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come. But sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own.
I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentlemen from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier would go on record as opposed to the erections of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines, and in the Seven Day’s fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with mangled forms of those who fought for this country and their country’s honor, he would not have made the speech.
When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made not requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered.
Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed for four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.
When my Mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of Mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my old Missus! Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in HONOR OF THE CONFEDERATE DEAD.”
When the applause died down, the measure passed overwhelmingly, and every Black member voted “AYE.”
The sources for this story -- which is very much in the historical record of Mississippi State Legislature -- can be found HERE.
In addition to your ill-informed statements, black Southerners themselves often times donated money towards the erection of these monuments of their own free will, even helped raise said money through bake sales, church fundraisers, ect. Well, you would know that if you were not trying to peddle some bullshit argument in the first place.
They failed, and they deserved to fail. God and the resources and fighting abilities of Union generals in the late period of the War saw to it they did at any rate. It's only fitting that Southerners who reject the legacies of slavery, secession and Jim Crow would prefer to be rid of these tributes to them. One cannot reject history, or the legacy of it. Even if you could somehow equate the removal of these monuments with those acts -- you cannot and have failed to do so effectively -- their removal won't alter American history. The only thing these acts seem to serve is a chance for you, a white Leftist regressive "ally" and self-hater to pat yourself on the back and claim you are not a bigot....which makes you an even bigger fool than I already think you are.
It's not a symptom of modern political correctness. Uh, yeah it is. Days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a New York mob destroyed a statue of King George III. LOL oh this argument again. You are aware that at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed King George III was STILL ALIVE. Tearing down the statue was meant to show him that the Crown no longer ruled the colonies. Confederate monuments by contrast were put up to honor long dead people out of respect and closure for the families who lost loved ones in the War. There is a big gaping difference between the two, are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it?
If the men and women of the Revolution were eager to be rid of the images of those who had oppressed them and made war on America, why should African-Americans in the South feel differently about statues of leaders who fought to keep their race in chains? So now like all white Leftist regressive "allies" YOU claim to speak for all African-Americans in the South? Sorry but no son, that dog don't hunt. Be sure to check out some more really nifty photographic examples for why you are full of shit: HERE.
For a long time, American history was owned by white men and minimized the treatment of blacks, women, Indians and Latinos. Yeah AMERICAN history was, not just Southern history. Accommodating our public spaces to their full citizenship doesn't erase history. Oh is that what you call it? I call it regression on the march. It fills in parts that had been shamefully omitted. So....removing something fills something? Um, you ever looked in a dictionary dude?
The Confederate monuments belong not in places of honor but in museums, as artifacts of past error. Your opinion, and thankfully not one shared by a significant majority in this country. They were put up to enshrine an interpretation of the past that has been discredited. See above showing why your conclusions are in error. Taking them down and putting up different statues AH! So you DO wanna fill something in? Ok, gotcha! is a reminder that in understanding the past, we shape the future. No you intellectual retard, understanding the past tells us where we have been.
If there's a statue of my relative Leonidas Polk honoring his Confederate leadership, There is indeed -- and as someone who claims knowledge of family history I'm shocked you don't know that....unless your family history isn't as fabricated as the rest of your opinion piece? I'm willing to see it pulled down. In fact, I'd like to be there to help. And I'm certain it would help you feel you have made up for some inadequacy in your shallow existence....for about two minutes or so.
Well folks, there you have it, another regressive, self-hating Confederate "descendant" called out and his narratives taken apart by the truth. In doing so I hope I have helped many of y'all learn more about why those of us who are proud descendants of Confederate soldiers continue to honor them, and more about the character of those who seek to protect and preserve historical truth rather than those who seek to take it apart with a sledge hammer.
Have a Happy Independence Day 2017 Y'all!
No comments:
Post a Comment