We Knew it was coming: NAACP wants Stone Mountain CARVING removed.

a reply to: SonOfThor

You do know that the KKK marched around carrying US flags don't you? Or that Delaware fought for the Union, but didn't get rid of slavery until after the civil war.

Or that Ulysses Grant had slaves? It is apropos to compare this hand shaking and call to get rid of monuments and take flags down to ISIS erasing history. Why? Because the civil war was a horrible messy situation, and as it always goes in war both sides committed atrocities against the other. It helps the federalists and central Government types maintain their encroaching power to portray the Union as this holy slave-rescuer, and the rebels as these racist evil enemies when in reality they were just as complicit in doing horrible things as the south (more-so arguably, i.e. the native population).

But hey, the south lost so of course anything other than what you were spoon fed in the public education (indoctrination) system is the only truth.

Grant himself owned a single slave, William Jones, who he freed in 1859. There's no record of when his father-in-law transferred ownership to Grant. His wife Julia didn't actually own any slaves as even "Black Julia" was her father's slave and no transfer was ever made to her so he was in no position to free them or any of the White Haven slaves. Whatever his true opinions may have been, Grant went on to push for the 15th Amendment as President.

Speaking of Generals, I think you might find the following quote from Robert E. Lee interesting:

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."

This was a statement made in 1870. Robert E. Lee acknowledged what the war was fought over, yet you refuse to. What about Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' Conerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861?

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.

[...]

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

Are you getting the feeling that maybe you're the one who has been indoctrinated into believing a myth?

Delaware was a border state and just like other border states, they were divided on the issue of slavery. According to the 1860 Census, there were 1,798 slaves in Delaware owned by 587 slave owners. Contrast the with the state with the most slaves, Virginia, in which resided 490,865 slaves and 52,128 slave owners. Delaware was something of a microcosm of the US with Confederate sympathies being concentrated in the southern portion of the state along with the slave owners. It should come then as no surprise that there were in fact Delawareans who fought for the Confederacy. If slavery were more widespread, maybe they too would have seceded. As it was, 13,000+ men including about a thousand black men, fought for the preservation of the Union and won a war that led to the abolition of slavery. Cheap one-liners aside, their reluctance to clean up their own back yard doesn't change the motivations for the Confederate states' secession, that it lead to war or the consequences of the Union victory.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Bicent76

It also represented rebellion.

And we can't have that now, can we.

Not sure what you mean nor what so many agreed with you on?

You feel the breaking apart of a country so that we kill one another is/was a good thing?
-620,000 dead?
Because the ones who wanted big wonderful estates with zero lifting of their own fingers wanted to rebel against their government and make their own? Selling babies away from Mothers like cattle if they have enough workers breeding men and women for the best performance in workers like animals and functioning without any laws to protect those who were their slaves?

originally posted by: beezzer
Everyone just relax. Nothing is being banned or torn down or removed or stopped from selling.

It's just one flag in South Carolina!

Sheesh people!

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemöller

a reply to: darkbake

How can you defy my point if my point was about conservatives and you are an admitted liberal?

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Bicent76

It also represented rebellion.

And we can't have that now, can we.

Not sure what you mean nor what so many agreed with you on?

You feel the breaking apart of a country so that we kill one another is/was a good thing?
-620,000 dead?
Because the ones who wanted big wonderful estates with zero lifting of their own fingers wanted to rebel against their government and make their own? Selling babies away from Mothers like cattle if they have enough workers breeding men and women for the best performance in workers like animals and functioning without any laws to protect those who were their slaves?

You missed his point entirely.

Why would anyone want to allow a symbol of rebellion to persist in this day and age when we as a country are so divided? Can't have that nifty symbol of rebellion around to serve as a rally point could we? That's why they brand people who fly the Gadsden as potential domestic terrorists at the DHS. It's another symbol of independence and rebellion.

Understand now?

a reply to: notmyrealname

You are exactly right.

a reply to: Bicent76

The irony here thou, IS Native americans do not have to fly or see old glory on there reservations.

If you do go to many reservations you will find old glory flying at schools, sheriffs office ,the BIA compounds , post office, and the FBI offices .

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Liquesence

Why is it only when a part of history that Southerners care for is in danger that all of a sudden "preserving history" is suddenly SUPER important, but up until then Southerners have been leading the way in masking and white washing history? Where was all the outrage for losing history when Oklahoma looked to ban AP History? Thankfully the guy pushing this controversy backed down, but I didn't see NEARLY this level of outrage of that event as I see over these ridiculous Confederate symbols.

You're correct that Oklahoma wasn't in the Confederacy, nor would it be a state until some decades later. However these Sooners below might want to take issue with your opinion about Oklahoma's role in the Civil War.

Cherokee Confederates reunion. There were also tribal members of the Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw and Creeks fighting with the Confederacy.

originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: theantediluvian

I suggest you read up on irish history, some came over by choice many more were forced.

You can give it an offical name but forcing people out of their homes forcing them to move, then forcing them to work for you is slavery in my book.

I know what American history books say, I know what English history books say, and I know what my family's history was... Foley clan from Waterford Ireland, my ancestors were not given a choice.

Blah blah. Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims? There's no doubt that tens of thousands of Irish were sent against their will to be sold into what amounts to slavery, particularly in the mid 17th century. What you're ignoring is the when and the where, probably because everything you think you know was gleaned from reading crap on the Internet.

The bulk of this would have been occurring well over a century before the American Revolution. Virginia for instance halted the British transports of "convicts" in 1671 and they weren't resumed for 40 years. There are even surviving first hand accounts from Irish indentured servants of the period, such as James Revel's The Poor Unhappy Transported Felon's Sorrowful Account of His Fourteen Years Transportation, at Virginia, in America, that don't bear out your misguided beliefs.

The inhumane treatment that you're conflating with the chattel slavery of Africans in America is if not exclusively, very nearly, based on accounts from colonies in the West Indies, particularly in Barbados where the majority of these people ended up. Go ahead and do some research of your own and I guarantee you're going to come up with 1,000 sites repeating the same "facts" from this article. It's pretty obvious they have a common source even when it's not attributed because the majority of them repeat an obvious error:

"The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves."

Except James II wasn't even born until 1633. Score one for the history books.

As for your bit about knowing your family's history. I know mine as well and I'll be willing to bet giving your poor vetting of this garbage that I've done a much more thorough job in my research. For instance I know that one of my 6th great grandfathers was an Ulster Scot from Derriaghy whose family had settled in Ireland a century before immigrating to the colonies. I know that there was a severe drought from 1714-1719 that spurred the immigration of about 5,000 of his neighbors who reported back on the favorable conditions to their friends and family back in Ireland. This lead to further waves of immigrants and by the Irish Famine of 1740-41, my own antecedent was settled in Virginia. His son, born in 1747 fought in the Revolutionary War and received a land grant. I've seen the tax rolls with my own eyes that identify indentured servants living in my 5th great grandfather's home. I even know the name of the slave he bought in 1801 before departing with his family to the Indiana territory as well as the year that slave was set free.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Beach Bum
a reply to: Liquesence

Wow these people have lost their friggin minds,I love this country and these scumbags in human skin suits are warping everything.

The only scum are the people that honor slavery.

HAtred of a hater begats more hate btw.

Perhaps we all need to learn to love each other. . .
Till then I will try to love the scum of the earth. . . . .

MLK would school you. Calling them Scum denotes HATE not love for them. LAso Did you see him in front of that memorial protesting it? GEtting rid of History you do not like to see is UN american.

ALso Im a link you something.

Who pays for stone mountain running and upkeep.
Stone mountains owners and who pays to run it.

READ IT. It dont look like any one pays taxes to run it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Got it you choose a select period of history,make snide comments about my ability to trace my family history, and finish up I'm assuming was your genealogy as proof of something.

Obviously your an expert on all things irish... I bow to you infinite wisdom...gawd forbid I got any information while in Ireland. ..Obviously I stumbled into the interwebs and got confused...

In case you didn't catch it../End sarcasm

a reply to: Rocker2013

The NAACP will not win this,

This is just the NAACP getting the white people back for Rachel Dolezal.

originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: theantediluvian

Got it you choose a select period of history,make snide comments about my ability to trace my family history, and finish up I'm assuming was your genealogy as proof of something.

Obviously your an expert on all things irish... I bow to you infinite wisdom...gawd forbid I got any information while in Ireland. ..Obviously I stumbled into the interwebs and got confused...

In case you didn't catch it../End sarcasm

Spare me. You're going to play the victim now after calling into question the accuracy of my comment to somebody else and then saying "I suggest you read up on irish history" when I politely refuted yours?

I guess I could have responded to you in kind "NO, I suggest YOU read up on Irish history!" but then nobody actually learns anything and the same myths are continually promoted by people who like to say things with authority but don't care to do any research.

If you're going to attempt to call people out and question their knowledge of a topic, then you should probably be prepared to defend your position.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Bicent76

It also represented rebellion.

And we can't have that now, can we.

Not sure what you mean nor what so many agreed with you on?

You feel the breaking apart of a country so that we kill one another is/was a good thing?
-620,000 dead?
Because the ones who wanted big wonderful estates with zero lifting of their own fingers wanted to rebel against their government and make their own? Selling babies away from Mothers like cattle if they have enough workers breeding men and women for the best performance in workers like animals and functioning without any laws to protect those who were their slaves?

You missed his point entirely.

Why would anyone want to allow a symbol of rebellion to persist in this day and age when we as a country are so divided? Can't have that nifty symbol of rebellion around to serve as a rally point could we? That's why they brand people who fly the Gadsden as potential domestic terrorists at the DHS. It's another symbol of independence and rebellion.

Understand now?

If that is what he meant he could have said it and saved me some trouble

a reply to: theantediluvian

You do realize you said irish slavery was complete bull.. That is what I took issue with.

Then a few posts up you say there is no doubt that tens of thousands were forcibly moved....

So what exactly did you refute?

Then you pulled up an article that I never referenced and said I obviously got my information from it... Assume much?

I never specified a time frame you assumed and decided to run with said assumption...

So again what exactly was your point?

a reply to: irishhaf

Fantastic, you tried to use your family history as proof here,

I know what my family's history was... Foley clan from Waterford Ireland, my ancestors were not given a choice.

And then when someone else does the same thing and it refutes what you have to say, it now should not be done.



Sorry facts got in the way of what you were saying, in case you missed the many Ante presented outside of the family history.

a reply to: Char-Lee

Ah, now, if he actually said it straight out, he wouldn't be half as fun.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Uh huh I really don't know what his point was with the genealogy... I pointed out some of my ancestors didn't have a choice...He pointed out his fought in the revolution and got a land grant and bought a slave....

And what does Ante mean?

Either way it's 2 am I'm off to sleep.

a reply to: irishhaf

What I was originally responding to was the following:

Granted, if they remove history and all depictions or history of slavery, then they won't have anything to bitch about anymore.
But there's always SOMETHING.

They don't realize that there were Irish and Scottish slaves just as much as other slaves. And as someone mentioned earlier, this country was founded on lies, deceit, genocide, and slavery of Native Americans....

The clear and obvious intent is that the American descendants of African slaves don't have "anything to bitch about" because "there were Irish and Scottish slaves just as much as other slaves" (in America and before that in the New England Colonies)

This is a popular myth among right-wing slavery apologists that took off (coincidentally... I guess?) around 2008. If you Google "Irish slaves" you'll find a ton of sites repeating this same myth and the exact same bullet-pointed list of "facts" condensed from the globalresearch.ca article I linked.

That statement and the myth that spawned it were what I was calling BS — because they are — and the myth has also become frustratingly popular. When you responded to me with:

Yes because being grabbed forcefully and move to another land and forcing them to work is so different.

The English pretty much depopulation Ireland at one point..

It seemed to me that you were defending the veracity of the myth that I was originally responding to? If that's not the case than this was an unfortunate misunderstanding and I apologize for my part.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Nothing to apologize for we were arguing two different points, happens on the Internet.

No harm no foul.