In the early morning New Orleans removes Confederate monuments...

[tod evans]

They should just start bulldozing, wholesale, southern cities as the bastions of the pro-slavery reminder that they are. And when they are done they can move operations to northern cities that are bastions of the pro-slavery reminder that they are.

I like this idea!

Run 'em up to Canada....

 

[devil21]

I was thinking about this last night, and while Confederate monuments might have a bad connotation to some people, I don't think we should erase that era from our history. We can't treat history as if some things never happened. Sometimes wrong decisions and wrong motives should be captured and exposed as a reminder that we don't want to go back to that kind of thinking.

I think we have gotten so caught up in the illusion of perfection as power that we don't want to see any scars or reminders that bad things happened, and I think that's a big mistake.

What they're attempting to erase is the engineered corporate takeover of the American landmass that sprang out of the Civil War. Removing monuments, flags, etc are removing the symbols that remind of the war and what came out of it. It's also why Google is going to start majorly censoring search results to prevent certain inconvenient historical truths from being disseminated. You're seeing the erasing and rewriting of history in real-time. I haven't reviewed any school history books recently but if it hasn't happened already, expect sections about the Civil War to be removed entirely, as if it never happened.

They call it the New South. There's a museum called the Levine Museum of the New South in my city that is devoted to rewriting history of the South. The spin and revisionist history is so blatant but people are already 99% ignorant of history so it's the icing on the cake.

 

[Dr.No.]

And one of the biggest problems is that no one knows real history.

The "Civil" War was never about slavery- it was about money and the stealing of the South's wealth/production by the North. PLUS the South had a right to secede- cracks me up when modern know-nothings call the South traitors.

Then why did so many declarations of secessions specifically mention that slavery was the cause of secession? Why did so many newspaper articles of the time specifically mention slavery as the reason for the war? Why did so many specifically mention that tariffs were not a reason for the secession?

How did the North steal the South's wealth/production? The vast majority of taxes were collected at Northern ports...the South didn't really have an import economy.

 

[phill4paul]

Then why did so many declarations of secessions specifically mention that slavery was the cause of secession? Why did so many newspaper articles of the time specifically mention slavery as the reason for the war? Why did so many specifically mention that tariffs were not a reason for the secession?

How did the North steal the South's wealth/production? The vast majority of taxes were collected at Northern ports...the South didn't really have an import economy.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=north...g=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Glad I could teach you how to fish. I'll be giving you none of mine.

 

[Origanalist]

Either side for/against the statue removal interviewed here call it an act of cowardice to do this in the middle of the night.

With snipers. It reconstruction all over again.

[edit, was already put out by PierzStyx]

Well, the South is finally being truly Reconstructed.

It is the fault of all the "AMERICA IS UH-MAZING AND CAN DO NO WRONG EVER!" conservatives as it is the delicate progressives though.

 

[Origanalist]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=north...g=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Glad I could teach you how to fish. I'll be giving you none of mine.

Out of rep.

 

[Ender]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=north...g=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Glad I could teach you how to fish. I'll be giving you none of mine.

LOL!

And + rep!

 

[AuH20]

I wonder what Tom Woods thinks. This stuff drives him crazy.

 

[devil21]

Then why did so many declarations of secessions specifically mention that slavery was the cause of secession? Why did so many newspaper articles of the time specifically mention slavery as the reason for the war? Why did so many specifically mention that tariffs were not a reason for the secession?

How did the North steal the South's wealth/production? The vast majority of taxes were collected at Northern ports...the South didn't really have an import economy.

The theft was mainly stealing the land by destroying land records which would have proven ownership by the historical families of the south in the aftermath of the CW. Most paper archives have been systematically destroyed when found and new records created showing the northern carpetbaggers as the owners of southern land. Of course, that meant that use of that land for production of crops, cattle, etc was stolen as well.

Here's an example:
http://www.wral.com/historians-lament-destruction-of-franklin-county-records/13229922/

Louisburg, N.C. — Thousands of documents and records dating to the 1840s that were stored in the basement of the Franklin County Courthouse were destroyed this month after a significant number were damaged by mold, officials said.

Now, some residents are upset about the loss of a part of local history they say was destroyed along with the papers, photographs and other items that were discovered only recently.

“For any historian or genealogist or anyone who wants to preserve the past, any piece of paper or photograph you come across is a treasure,” said Diane Taylor Torrent, with the Heritage Society of Franklin County, a preservation group.

She said the documents included property and court records that predated the Civil War and photographs from the 1920s.

“Immediately when I found these pictures, the first thing I did was scan them,” Torrent said.

Patricia Burnette Chastain helped find the records shortly after taking office as clerk of Franklin County Superior Court.

“I was extremely disappointed to see that these particular records had not been cared for,” she said.

A leaky pipe was to blame for the mold that damaged some of the records.

“It was circulating throughout our courthouse, and people’s health could very easily be affected,” Chastain said.

Months after Chastain and the Heritage Society started working to preserve the documents, the county decided on Dec. 6 to burn the records. The state recommended the decision.

“A lot of these records that they saw were of very short-term value to the state or (were) like check stubs or confidential records that are not to be seen unauthorized,” said Sarah Koonts, director of the North Carolina Division of Archives and Records.

She said the documents had been inspected in 1964 by the state and were ordered destroyed back then.

But Torrent said she wishes the records were simply relocated so the basement could have been cleaned to address the air quality problem. Among the items lost was a copy of a bill introduced in the legislature in the 1870s that required North Carolina farmers to fence their cattle and a letter written from a soldier serving in France during World War I.

“It breaks my heart because these are the records that are gone forever now,” she said.

That story is one example. Deeper research into that particular case show that the msm version of the story wasn't very accurate. It was all done very underhandedly and secretively. Those records likely showed who the true heirs to property were...

 

[Anti Federalist]

They should just start bulldozing, wholesale, southern cities as the bastions of the pro-slavery reminder that they are. And when they are done they can move operations to northern cities that are bastions of the pro-slavery reminder that they are.

Grant II

 

[kpitcher]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=north...g=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Glad I could teach you how to fish. I'll be giving you none of mine.

Looking at the actual southern states declarations of succession slavery is the main topic. There were some economic reasons stated, paragraphs later after lengthy discussions of slavery. However by far the majority of the declarations are all about preserving slavery.

For example, Mississippi starts off

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

 

[Dr.No.]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=north...g=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Glad I could teach you how to fish. I'll be giving you none of mine.

But those results are just lies. DiLorenzo, Woods et. al just made up numbers. Most tariffs were NOT collected at Southern Ports, but at northern ones: http://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/24/walter-e-williams-polishes-the-turd-on-tariffs/

 

[Dr.No.]

The theft was mainly stealing the land by destroying land records which would have proven ownership by the historical families of the south in the aftermath of the CW. Most paper archives have been systematically destroyed when found and new records created showing the northern carpetbaggers as the owners of southern land. Of course, that meant that use of that land for production of crops, cattle, etc was stolen as well.

Here's an example:
http://www.wral.com/historians-lament-destruction-of-franklin-county-records/13229922/



That story is one example. Deeper research into that particular case show that the msm version of the story wasn't very accurate. It was all done very underhandedly and secretively. Those records likely showed who the true heirs to property were...

Not sure how this is relevant. One anecdote about destroyed records...plus, this happened well AFTER the civil war. How did the North steal the South's land/production, as claimed, prior to the war?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Then why did so many declarations of secessions specifically mention that slavery was the cause of secession?

What do you mean so many? There were only four states that cited causes in declarations. There were nine states that issued ordinances, statements that did not even cite causes.

The states also cited broader economic reasons other than slavery numerous times in many documents. This is from Georgia:

The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.... They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

...After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why did so many newspaper articles of the time specifically mention slavery as the reason for the war? Why did so many specifically mention that tariffs were not a reason for the secession?

Again, what do you mean by so many? Many northern newspapers and their readers had no interest in war. They were all too willing to let the south go. They many times cited reasons of economics, the tariff, and or constitutional issues. Here are just four of them:


“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.” -- Cincinnati Daily Press 11-21-60

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” -- NY Times 3-21-61


“Let the South adopt the free-trade system [and the North’s] commerce must be reduced to less than half what it is now…Our labor could not compete…with the labor of Europe [and] a large portion of our shipping interest would pass into the hands of the South.” -- Daily Chicago Times, 12-10-60


“The mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade…" -- Boston Transcript 3-18-61

 

[givemeliberty2010]

And one of the biggest problems is that no one knows real history.

The "Civil" War was never about slavery- it was about money and the stealing of the South's wealth/production by the North. PLUS the South had a right to secede- cracks me up when modern know-nothings call the South traitors.

Lincoln made it all about slavery, later in the war, so he could get abolitionists behind him and increase support. Plus his proclamation never freed the northern slaves- only the southern. Not to mention that slavery was on it's way out- even blacks were slave holders- would have ended peacefully had not the government tried to take all the wealth.

But ask anyone around you about these little details of history and they will think you're crazy.

All of those Southerners defending slavery and outraged that the North might get involved were actually not really serious.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The Civil War obviously had the slavery component, but the larger context and economic picture is ignored. Lincoln stated that he was not interested in eliminating slavery where it already existed, so then why did he so aggressively go after the South? It's because the south had the raw materials and the wealth needed by the north. The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South.

Lincoln also aggressively attempted to unjustly vilify southerners who had no interest in his personal aims. He labeled neutral Kentucky residents as "treasonous" after the war started because Kentucky did not join the union. Furthermore, four states seceded after the start of the war. North Carolina, for example, was largely prompted by geography, with surrounding S. Carolina and Virginia already having left.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And in case you've never seen the insincere and racist quotes of Lincoln:


"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."


“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”


"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”


“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”





And the key quote where Lincoln had no slavery interest, at least in the context he so insincerely promoted later:


“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”



Lincoln simply tapped into the slavery card to sell it to Europe.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How did the North steal the South's land/production, as claimed, prior to the war?

Through cronyism. The government simply subsidized the northeast. The biggest example was subsidies granted to a shipbuilding industry in a northeast that was getting too crowded, running out of jobs, and running out of farmland.

American made ships legally paid a much lower duty when sailing back from Europe than any foreign made ship. That meant the south was on the hook for any goods received from Europe by foreign manufactured ships. The north added insult to injury by helping to create a triangle of chicanery. It was the New York harbor boats that sailed to southern ports to carry goods back and forth from Europe, not the foreign vessels. Boats, by the way, that were built with the south's raw materials.

 

[Ender]

Through cronyism. The government simply subsidized the northeast. The biggest example was subsidies granted to a shipbuilding industry in a northeast that was getting too crowded, running out of jobs, and running out of farmland.

American made ships legally paid a much lower duty when sailing back from Europe than any foreign made ship. That meant the south was on the hook for any goods received from Europe by foreign manufactured ships. The north added insult to injury by helping to create a triangle of chicanery. It was the New York harbor boats that sailed to southern ports to carry goods back and forth from Europe, not the foreign vessels. Boats, by the way, that were built with the south's raw materials.

I'd plus rep you 5 times if I could- awesome stuff!