Acts20.com

I tried to pinpoint why I felt troubled about the removal of southern Civil War statues, monuments, names, and so forth. I mean, despite arguments to the contrary, I am satisfied that the key driver of the war was slavery, so why should I feel upset at the removal of monuments to those who fought on the side of the south?And yet I am....I think part of it might be some small degree of pride in our relatively outnumbered, outgunned armies holding their own against larger forces. But I have come to believe that the main reason is that the Civil War was a moment that DEFINED the South as a unique and other part of America. And because we know that the South is STILL different from the rest of the country in key ways, we hold on to these markers that, in some ways, represented the high water mark of the South.The War was what isolated us together...was what gave us the symbols that reflect the South...that bound us together not just geographically, but in emotional ways, too. And so we treasure them above what may be reasonable because they are really the ONLY iconography we have, as nothing has since replaced them.Then there is the feeling that everyone who whimpers over such things gets their way...and that creates defensiveness in us.

All it is going to do is cause more division. It amazes me that Forrest, Lee and Beauregard are portrayed as symbols of reconciliation and racial healing. After taking several courses at SAGU, I'm convinced more than ever that slavery was indeed the main cause of north/south division, but not from a moral standpoint. The North's opposition to slavery stemmed from their growing resentment of the 3/5 clause. Without the 3/5 representation of the slaves in Congress, the Hamiltonian Whigs would be able to ram their agenda through. This was also the basis for their opposition to the extension of slavery. Had the 38-30 Missouri Compromise line been extended to the Pacific Ocean, the south most likely never would have seceded. But the creation of a few more slave states would have meant more states inhabited by Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Democrats opposed to the Whig agenda. The number of slaves would not have increased, their dispersement would have changed, nothing more. Slavery, in the context described above, was the cause of

It does bother me, not enough to riot, but to think someone is actually trying to change or hide historical facts it seems. The KKK represents much more 'nausea' to me. Why not OUTLAW it's very existence. Make it a federal crime to be a member of the KKK? The hooded marches should generate more hate memories than the CW monuments.No I am not for that of course, but neither am I for removing monuments to the Confederacy. Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

To me, that's part of the problem. If we don't learn from history, we are destined to repeat our mistakes.

What is wrong with whites having a group that represents their interests? Why should that be illegal so long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights? Though I do

Since Memorial Day has some southern, thus racist, roots, perhaps we need to remove the holiday.

What is wrong with whites having a group that represents their interests? Why should that be illegal so long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights? Though I do

Condaleeza Rice recently said that it's an attempt at whitewashing US history. It's giving in to those who are easily offended (everyone on the left these days). And, we know the reason for remembering our past. Those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm a northerner that lives in the southeast. As horrible as that time in our history was, we can't tear down the statues and monuments as if it never happened The World As I See Itworldjeffreysees.blogspot.com/Revuriah's Facebookwww.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Richard/1226257444Jeffrey David Richard's Myspace Musicwww.myspace.com/547856946

What is wrong with whites having a group that represents their interests? Why should that be illegal so long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights? Though I do

I really do not care how much has been written projecting slavery as the reason for the War of Northern Aggression. It only takes one tiny bit of common sense to realize that the war was caused by the same thing all wars are caused by, money. Northern greed for Southern wealth was the root. As Lincoln said to John Baldwin, I can't let them go, who will pay for our government? No, I cannot prove absolutely that he said it, but you cannot prove conclusively that he did not. The circumstantial evidence weighs heavily in favor to indicate it is true.