It's simple. Even though a man died doing what he thought was an honorable deed, and even though the "bugle call" is Gabriel's trumpet to mark the end of all wars, it all matters naught to the people who want America to forget. If history is too insulting for the SJWs, they wash it from the text.

Actually, no, they don't want America to forget. They simply want to get revenge on everyone involved in slavery, as long as they were white.

Note they want to wipe out all memorials and vestiges of the Confederacy, but STILL want reparations for slavery.

It is a contrary stand. They cannot have both.

Perhaps someone should point out to them that by continuing to demand reparations for slavery, they are becoming something of a monument to slavery themselves?
pff.. right, like they'd listen <_<

Anyone who would deface history deserves to be killed and their family line fucking wiped out, their blood expunged from the earth forever. Remove them from history for the crime of removing history.

I dont care what the fuck your political stands are, history is history. Just because you think it was 'not nice' does not mean you get to pretend it never happened. People who want to keep running Confederate flags on cars and houses and shit? There is no fucking point, its stupid. But people who try to remove confederate statues and monuments? Those people are fucking ignorant cunts who are trying to erase history like the fucking fascists from the book 1984. The shit HAPPENED. DEAL WITH IT.

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

....You've just advocated murdering entire families because of their political beliefs. The ultimate lesson of history is this; Any ideology is evil once it advocates violence as a means of furthering its ideals. Defacing history certainly merits a fine or even a short jail sentence, but murdering the perpetrator and their entire family? It's you that needs to learn from history.

It has nothing to do with political beliefs. That is mearly the motivation they fool themselves into believing. The crime is the destruction of history, period. I'd feel the same way if someone wanted to destroy history concerning the Holocaust, or the Underground Railroad, or any other major historical event. History is precious. It literally is our keys to the past, and destruction of history is no different then destroying our links to the past. It is a crime that does not 'go away', or that gets better over time. Once its gone its gone forever. Is it not fair to punish those that destroy human history then to remove them from human history? And before you go saying 'you cannot punish those of their family that have nothing to do with the crime', what do you call reparations, or cultural shame, which is exactly what they are doing to people who continue to hold such things as the confederate flags dear? Its literally forcing them to pay for the crimes of their ancestors, so if its good for the goose, then its good for the gander.

That encompasses so many levels of stupid, I'm just not gonna bother anymore.

Normally I would say the same, to be honest, but I'm just tired of it. The world has gone mad and I honestly have no tolerance for people ignoring it anymore. People thinking its ok to re-write history just because it offends them, or to brand entire cultures or races as 'nazis' just because they dont agree with them.

But you mentioned history and learning from it. I would direct you to the story from Ancient China of Guan Yu and Pang De, and his son Pang Hui.

Rewriting history is pretty normal actually. It has happened on a regular basis for pretty much as long as written history has been about.

But people who try to remove confederate statues and monuments? Those people are fucking ignorant cunts who are trying to erase history like the fucking fascists from the book 1984. The shit HAPPENED. DEAL WITH IT.
And your stance on blowing up / destroying the Third Reich iconography and Saddam Hussein's statues?

I'd rather lock them up in vaults as reminders of what totalitarianism looks like, less we forget.

So... we've forgotten who The Third Reich was... or Hitler.. or Hussein?

You would be surprised.

So... we've forgotten who The Third Reich was... or Hitler.. or Hussein?

You would be surprised.
Actually, what's I'm surprised about is the non-answer this is.

Again, I ask: Have we forgotten who The Third Reich, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein were?

Well the answer means is this: I assume that the average person is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Have we forgotten what the Third Reich was? I have not, but then again I majored in History and find a lot of history to be interesting (Though overplayed parts of history you hear about constantly? Not so much. One of my favorite periods to study is the first World War since before Battlefield 1 came around no one knew a god damn thing about it). But I am pretty sure that by now when people hear of the third reich its merely a buzzword, a word that has no context on its own and is only used in conjunction with other words like 'hitler' or 'nazi'. People are so quick now at days to ignore the history they don't like or don't care about and simply focus on whatever fits their narrative. History can be ugly, and of course a lot of it is, but its history, it happened, you have to deal with it, learn from it. Simply pretending it did not happen does not help anyone except those looking to repeat it.

And what of you? You seem to be asking a lot of questions yourself but are providing no answers of your own. What are your answers to these questions you have posed?

I ask questions when I want to find out why people have made assertions when the reasoning is unclear or possibly contradictory to me.

I do not think that the average person is 'dumb'. I think the most important thing is for improved education to teach what happened: not just the by-rote spit-back-the-data-points learning, but the narrative of what happened, how, and why.

One of my favorite periods to study is the first World War since before Battlefield 1 came around no one knew a god damn thing about it And that plays into what I mean. If it were taught better, where "there are no bad students, only bad teachers" (meaning a good teacher will motivate a student to learn a topic), the realities of war, of the humanities, of civics would be something people would WANT to know better, want to no longer be ignorant about what will make their lives better, as well as society at large.

I guess in order to answer this question honestly, it would be wise to enter another man's shoes...

Suppose we had a second civil war. And suppose that in years after this second civil war, you were looking at an Antifa grave, rather than a Confederate grave....

Implying Antifa would actually muster up the courage as a group to fight in an honorable war.

As if there's such a thing as an "honorable" war.

*chuckles* How'd I know you'd say something like that, and evade the point? You can recognize the bravery and determination of the soldiers on both sides if they fight properly; if, however, they behave like Antifa - attacking from the shadows, ganging up on lone individuals, attacking where there is no violence to begin with - they would not be honorable combatants.

Well, those are basically the tactics we used to win the Revolutionary War.

Oh? We went and attacked random people just because they disagreed with us? We fought only when we could win, and otherwise cowardly ran away?

Bullshit.

Well, the colonists tarred and feathered unarmed tax collectors.

And in the battles of Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill, we did exactly that.

*chuckles* Yeah, not buying it. Tarring and feathering 'unarmed tax collectors' - ie, people with the authority and might of the crown behind them, who were directly oppressing them. As for Lexington and Concord, the battles were between two groups of armed combatants in open war, not cowardly strikes against unarmed targets with no relation to the war.

But hey; when in doubt, claim moral equivalency! Because that works so well for lefties, doesn't it.

Heh, I like how you left out Bunker Hill there...

*chuckles* When I dig through your post and only find shit, what do you expect? You just threw out several names, and there was no good in the first ones; why should I subject myself to even more of your stupidity when I find your argument has no basis to start? If you want to make an argument, make it; dropping names and expecting me to do the legwork of researching it to prove every single piece of it wrong, however, won't cut it.

You actually had to research the Revolutionary War?

And you call yourself an American?

Awww, poor little troll - can't come up with a better insult? Even if I didn't know a thing about the revolutionary war, I'd still be more American than a leftist cuck like you ;)

Seems to me the only one trying to troll here is you, sending me insult after rehashed insult.

Well, at least I got you to learn about something...

Awww - you can fling insults, but can't take 'em? Poor little Lefty! Come back when you can stand up with the big boys, huh? ^.^

*Rolls eyes*

Thanks for proving my point for me ;)

Pure speculation. Not applicable.

Antifa would never fight a fair war. They would hide in the shadows.

You mean like what we did with the British in 1776?

Yes, except honestly, I don't seem them using firearms. They haven't yet.

The fact that you're even talking about civil war, and about factions, is a bad sign - Remember, the goal of propaganda is to make yo forget that your enemy is a person, not an inanimate object or mindless beast. SJWs may be kind of annoying but they're still humans, and once we forget that, we've fulfilled their raving prophecies of fascist take-overs - once you forget someone is a human, it becomes so much easier to kill them.

Oh, I concur, but when antifa already thinks of those opposed to them as non-human (which they do, you can tell from their disdain for property rights, laws against assault, etc.) our only choices are surrender or fight back.

Just so long as we remember - fanaticism is a very human flaw, and a depressingly frequent one I find.

I don't think, hope, most people realize that United States Anifa is mostly a bunch of suburban kids that think they're being tough.

I do think, not don't think... gad I can't type today

Hmmm, just so we're on the same page, you know I was saying that we basically hid in the shadows in order to fight the British, right?

Yes, rather than the ordered lines of the British, which is normal battle form these days.

Just checking, something always gets lost in writing, you know?

Yup. Perfectly understandable.

Wrong; despite the "hide behind trees with rifles " myth, 18th cent battles, including the ones the Continental Army fought, were stand up, shoulder-to-shoulder affairs using short range muskets. And Mad Anthony Wayne took the British at Stony Point using only bayonets.

More like what just happened in Hamburg. Keep up with the news.

If you're talking about the G20 Riots, those are ALWAYS violent.

I know. It's only in recent years that people are breaking free of the forced narratives on these people. Media saturation kills the ability of any 1 outlet to craft propaganda.
But the violence coupled with the avowed goals of said rioters do tend to be deliciously ironic.

I suppose I'm a little confused by part of your reply. Are you defending or condemning the Hippies?

And if we really want walk a mile in them, most of the monuments (not the graves) are basically giant stone participation trophies.

Its a part of our history that should be remembered and learned from. From this, we learn of the dedication and courageousness of the soldiers on the other side of the line. Even if you think he was wrong and he was on the wrong side, you can not dismiss his Honor.

There is a difference between the grave of this gentleman, and the adjunct plaque added by the Confederate Legion. I shall leave my comment at that.

That, I believe, is the point. 7@=e

Oh good fucking god. Okay look I know the media is spinning it so the "SJW" are trying to make us forget our history by taking down Confederate monuments and flags (by the way the "ol stars and bars" isn't even the Confederate States' flag. It was general Lee's army of Virginia that's all) doesn't mean that's actually what's going on. What people want is for the nation to stop glorifying men and events that had a horrifying impact on the history of this nation. The Civil War was a fight over ideologies and power. Not states' rights. We can never and should never forget our past and the things that happened there. But at the same time we should by no means glorify something that was pretty horrible. Do you see loyal German cities flying the swastika under the German flag? Do you see Russia flying their old sickle and hammer under their flag? How about India? I don't see the ol Union Jack flying under their flag. So why should we as a nation honor a group that 1) lost that conflict, and 2) went to war cause they refused to give up their slaves? Never forget what happened in those years, and the impact it had on the WORLD. But don't glorify it.

I know a couple Canadians that wear the Hammer and Sickle around all the time.

Seems to me all the recent PC hoopla about removing statues, markers, flags, etc., related to the Civil War, and the Confederacy (and slavery) is a foolish attempt to sanitize history; perhaps more likely an attempt to re-write history.

All this, and much more is all part of our national history! So it's a history with warts in places we don't like. If we let people try to erase it are we better off?

NO!

Letting this continue denigrates not only those who fought to preserve the Union, but the history of those who (at the time) were trying to preserve their own cultural end of things. Sure,.., that part of US History is ugly.. brutal.. inhumane, but it IS our history.

Remember the saying: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it!"

As long as we preserve this history (warts and all) we Lessen the likelihood of repeating those terrible mistakes.

So, question.

If they were taken down from their current pedestals and placed in a museum, such as the Smithsonian, as the markers and monuments of an earlier time, would you take issue?

No... but then again if it's part of the current community, and they objected I'd support the communities feelings on the mater.

I guess another good question would be with/how would you replace the marker or statue to continue some historical aspect of the site, or area?

I try not to talk about this stuff because people dont like to listen these days, but here is my opinion from what i have read and studied regarding this dark conflict.

I am of the opinion that the War Between the States ( Alias War of Rights, The War of Northern Aggression, and The American Civil War) was instigated by manipulation from southern politicians during and after the election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln ran on the republican ticket for the presidency, which the time, the Republican party was known for their abolitionist views on topics regarding the spread and containment of slavery in america. However, Lincoln never had an abolitionist stance. He even said so him self "If i can save the union by not freeing the slaves, ill do it. If i can save the union by freeing all of the slaves, ill do it. And if i can save the union by freeing some but not others, i will do that too." The fact that he was on the republican ticket scared the rich plantation owners and their politician friends in the southern governments. They (the plantation owners, politicians, and others involved with slavery) were afraid of a republican becoming president because it threatened their expansion of slavery; and it scared them so much that several counties all through out the southern states never even placed Lincoln on their ballots in hope of forcing voters to only vote for the Southern Democrat nominee John C. Breckenridge or the Democratic nominee Stephen Douglas. (in the 1860 election you had 2 democrat parties, Democrats and Southern Democrats. As for not even putting Lincoln on those ballots I'm still looking into whether that in itself is technically illegal, which in all honesty I'm sure it is)

Here is where my opinion begins: Lincoln still won with 180 electoral votes and 39% of the popular vote. This really pissed of alot of southern folk since after all "how could he have won when he was never on the ballot?" The way i see it, is that now the rich southerners who ran things (plantation owners, politicians etc) who owned slaves could now control the poor farmers and ordinary citizens by feeding into their anger. The idea that their (the rich people's and politicians) "right" to own slaves was now threatened, thus brings up the idea that "If they can just take our "right" to own slaves, what will keep them from taking our other (true) rights, like our rights to free speech, or our right to bear arms, or any other right stated in the constitution?" Tensions get higher and higher until the whole public feels threatened that their rights will be taken away. This is where the "fighting for our rights" ideal begins. Soon the idea of secession is implanted and several states hold elections to vote for secession. Soon Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas seceded and created the Confederate States of America.

Then on April 12th, the new Confederate army opened fire on a Federal (U.S.) fort in South Carolina called Fort Sumter. In retaliation, Lincoln orders an army be made up of 75,000 "Volunteers" to quell the growing rebellion. Because of this act, more southern states (Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina) Seceded, feeling that Lincoln was overstepping his bounds. Now you had people fighting for their right to secede, and to protect their homes. This build up from the election to the outbreak of war evolved from Plantation owners and Southern politicians plotting to keep their slaves and fortunes under a republican president, to poor farmers and average ordinary citizens having to defend their homes against a union onslaught that they now feared was coming to take away their rights.

In short: My opinion is that the RICH Plantation/ slave owners and their Political Cohorts in the south used manipulation to get the rest of the population to believe that a "Tyrant" in Washington was going to trample their rights, "If they can take our "right" to own slaves, what other rights will they take from you." Remember, a very small percent of the southern population owned slaves, hardly any of said population even fought (most bought out their drafts so they couldn't be drafted into the confederate army) and those who did used their money to be officers and other high ranking officials in the Confederate army or government.

Thus, when it comes to the normal rank and file confederate soldier, i still give them respect as i would any other soldier of this country, because in my opinion from what i have collected and looked into, they fought to defend their homes and families, albeit for a lost cause spurred on by people in government and with money who abused their power to brainwash hundreds of thousands of american citizens into fighting against their own country. Id write more but i spent over an hour putting this up.

Post Script: Instead of desecrating the graves and monuments of confederate soldiers who went through things no one should, go after the graves of those politicians who yelled for secession, sent these brave men to fight for them under false pretenses just to die for a lost cause, and YET GET WELCOMED BACK TO THEIR OLD GOVERNMENT JOBS IN WASHINGTON AFTER THE WAR.

One piece of history that's related to slavery (and like Women in science and mathematics very under reported) is that there were small numbers of slave owners who were African American. That's come out in the last 10 years.

Another point is economic: the points you're raising also go to the economic structure of those states. Technology was slowly making an inroads into plantations; in short the use of slave labor was not effective as a harvest method. Readers can check this link: http://www.cornways.de/hi_combine.html

Look at the dates 1856 to 1860, especially the combine in 1860. Horses where cheaper to maintain than slaves, and time & efficiency is $$$ in farming. Which is why there's a growing number of 21st. Century farmers looking to total GPS driven farms (bye bye migrant workers).

Then the growing objection to slavery in northern states is another factor. Couple this with the original compromise to maintain slavery in getting southern states to sign onto the Declaration of Independence..., a perfect storm!

And i am of the counter opinion, that the war between the states was fought over Tariffs and the increasing control the north influenced over the federal Government Control that also included deciding slavery.( something that had only fallen out of moral favor recently)

Forty percent was the federal sales tax on imports imposed on the Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861, the south had watched over the past 50 years as tariff taxes which only effected the south went up every time their political enemies of the north ( The Whigs ) gained control, (Tariff of 1842 Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 constant bickering debates through out the years) The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 but it was still the same north centered protectorate of the Norths industry political party.Not only were those taxes unfair to the Souths agriculturally centered trade based economy it didn't even receive back equal amounts of federal spending.

The Numbers on the federal revenue of even the compromise tariffs of the 1830s and 1840s when analyzed show that, the total revenue was around $107.5 million, with the South paying about $90 million and the North $17.5 million. yeah that sounds fair.Also spending records show that the majority of the money ( around 80%) was going to prop up and support northern business monopolies, industry and public projects in the north.

On the southern side the 1860s U.S. census put the numbers far more realistically as you have coincided , only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. It was not so much as a fight to preserve slavery as it was a war to decide who had the right to decide. The south had bent over double with compromises over the expansion of their "peculiar institution" first with the Missouri compromise and then with the states voting on it. yet each time they took the shorter end of the stick.

On the firing upon fort Sumter. Taking up arms to defend against a invading army of a foreign country is not only a reasonable act by the states but a necessary one. What country allows another to arm an invasion force in its harbor. Saturday, January 5, 1861, a force of 200 men, under the command of U.S. Army Lieutenant Charles R. Wood, boarded the steamer Star of the West at Governor’s Island in New York Harbor and immediately sailed for Charleston. Four days later, Star of the West approached within two miles of Fort Sumter before Southerners opened fire from a masked battery at the north end of Morris Island. "A brisk fire was kept up on us by the battery as long as we remained within range, but, fortunately, without damage to us," Wood later said in his report about the unsuccessful effort to reach Fort Sumter.

One of the ships sent with the force was a tax collection vessel the revenue cutter Harriet Lane , the north didn't want to loose the highest taxable income the federal government had at the time, southern tariffs. The war was like so many fought over money.

I believe the words of Captain Anderson of said fort in reply to a letter from the Lincoln administration in forming him of the sending of reinforcements will suffice to show who the aggressor was.

"I had the honor to receive, by yesterday's mail, the letter of the Honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4th, and confess that what he there states surprises me greatly - following, as it does, and contradicting so positively, the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was "authorized" to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, WHEN THE SOUTH HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY INFORMED THAT NONE SUCH WOULD BE ATTAMPTED, would produce most disastrous results throughout the country... I ought to have been informed that this expedition [to resupply the fort] was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in THIS WAR, which I see is to be THUS COMMENCED."

Thus in the words of Anderson sending the attack force was what started off the war. So who was the aggressor? One of the first acts of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America, was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish peaceful relations with the North. Abraham Lincoln would not even meet with the delegation.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn't pay federal tariffs or if they didn't allow the federal government to occupy federal installations within their borders. Said Lincoln,

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion... "Beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion."

So there would be an invasion if it were necessary "for these objects," i.e., for the occupation of federal installations, which everyone knew was a reference to federal facilities in the seceded states, and for the collection of duties and imposts. The state of South Carolina offered to pay compensation for Fort Sumter, and the Confederacy was prepared to do the same. The Confederacy was prepared to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South. The Confederacy announced in its provisional constitution that it was willing to enter into negotiations with the North in order to arrange for payment of the South's fair share of the national debt. The Confederacy guaranteed the Northern states access to the Mississippi River.

The legislation of the Confederate Congress furnishes the best evidence of the temper and spirit which prevailed in the organization of the Confederate government... By an act approved on February 26 [1861,] all laws which forbade the employment in the coasting trade of vessels not enrolled or licensed, and all laws imposing discriminating duties on foreign vessels or goods imported in them, were repealed. These acts and all other indications manifest the well-known wish of the people of the Confederacy to preserve the peace and encourage the most unrestricted commerce with all nations, surely not least with their late associates, the Northern states.

History shouldn't be removed.

Many years ago, at a "Gathering of Eagles" that the local (then) Confederate Air Force chapter organized, I said much the same thing to Gunther Rall, Walter Schuck and the other ex-Luftwaffe pilots there -- that, while I considered the _government_ for which they fought to be reprehensible, that they and their fellow soldiers served their _country_ with honor and dedication, and that I respected them personally for that service.

There's a big difference between a grave, and a monument honoring a bunch of traitors who fought to own human beings as property.

There might be assholes out there who want to desecrate somebody's grave, but I can hardly blame people for not wanting the monuments around.

My thoughts exactly.

https://harrisburg100.blog/2017/06/.....in-gettysburg/

Thankfully park police and civil war re-enactors helped to prevent this from happening.

Nobody prevented anything from happening. That was a hoax. There's been a bunch of antifa hoax things happening just to get these people to turn out and roast in the hot sun for no reason for hours lol. I'm not sure if trolls are doing it or antifa themselves are trolling.

You didn't even tell half the story man....

https://twitter.com/LoganJames/stat.....32973446832134

I just someday the regressive right learns they're just the opposite side of the same coin as the regressive left. They're all whiny whinging social justice warrior snowflakes who've bought into a divisive outrage culture with a warped twisted sense of what social justice is.

Also lol at shooting himself. I did hear about that, i didn't realize that was at that specific counter protest lol. There've been like a dozen of these alt right baiting fake protests now lol. You would think these idiots would just look at the weather forecast on these so called protests and use their frickin heads and realize that the more unpleasant the weather is the more certain they can be it's a hoax.

If this was a hoax I only hope this didn't waste the park's time and resources. Also, in my opinion the grounds of the park should be treated with respect as it was where many people gave their lives on both sides of the war. It should always be a reminder of what the cost of engaging in a civil war looks like.

I say let it rest. He deserves as much respect as anyone else in that graveyard.

A monument in a public park is one thing. A private grave should just be left in peace

As a Canadian, I have no say in this.

The markers seem to be damaged slightly, either by Vandalism, or perhaps a hurricane. It's nice that someone is kind enough to leave a flag and flowers in his memory though.

it may just be algae, acid rain and mosses attacking the stone, perhaps it has a repair on the pristine side.

21st. Century Confederate legion? That's like a grave maintained by the Loyalist British Brigade. Weird.

Progressive Liberals (SJW's) are trying to erase history for the sake of Political Correctness. Feels over Reals. Leave the graves sites alone and stop trying to sanitize the world. Learn from history and strop trying to erase it.

Comparing this grave to that that of Thomas Romer makes me wonder if people have already tried to desecrate it.

Walter Benjaminin in his Theses on the Philosophy of History (1940) wrote:"With whom does the historical writer of historicism actually empathize? The answer is irrefutably with the victor."Usually , incorrectly reduced to "History is written by the victors." Or perhaps this fits better:Who controls the past, controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.

Removing the Confederate flag and statues of say Davis and Forrest is fine. I think statues of Lee and Jackson should stay up, their campaigns are talked about in military academies even today.

Discuss?

You have very civilized commentators. (Mostly.) Everyone sounds like normal people.

My question. Is this grave already desecrated by adding this marker to it? Endorsing some sort of social or political group that the soldier never heard of?
Would it also be okay if the new marker said that the grave was now 'watched' by the Confederate Cola Bottling Corporation?
Would that be desecration?

The new marker works to make this soldier's grave "political". How much do markers like that cost to make and place? How many have been placed? That could be a huge investment in "trolling" a whole lot of dead soldiers. Someone must think it is worth a lot of money to make that sort of investment. In trolling the living, by using the dead.

Who could do that?

What a cool old gravestone!
What a flimsy pretext to start going off about people whose politics you disagree with. But I know you're inclined to do that with or without a pretext.

Confederate history is just as, if not more important to the country as history about the country itself. It's a reminder of horrible, and somber times for us, and reminds us of time where brother fought brother in their own back yard.

Is it important? Hell yeah it is. Because it shows where we've we been, and could end up again given the right/wrong circumstances happen.

If 620,000 soldiers died in the early 1860's, then just imagine what'd happen today. Still is America's bloodiest and most costly in the terms of life lost war.

I'm for history. I'm for upholding history. And I'm definitely for learning history. But I'm damn sure against erasing it.

The erasing of history doesn't make it fore sure, only uncertain.

I'd love to discuss this, but you stir up too many feelings, mainly your own

Man, it's an old grave that otherwise I'd have just not even noticed until I looked closer. I got far more important shit to care about and let's be honest with Mrs. Earth making it clear humans ain't welcome no more we ALL got bigger things to care about.

If people get this worked up over an old grave they should really reevaluate their priorities. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is just my opinion.

Let us not forget that soldiers on both sides are but the common man sent out to fight for the interests of a powerful few. The common enlisted man is blameless for his role in war for he is doing the bidding others. Slandering the name and memory of a common soldier is cowardly and unwarranted. This man may or may not have believed what he fought for was right, but he died for his country and his fellow countrymen, and that is honorable. The Confederate Soldiers were as much sons of the United States as were the Union Soldiers. Their sacrifice should not be forgotten or spoken ill of. Most people have an extremely biased, limited, and perverted understanding of what the Civil War was actually about. I hear so many people that dare belittle and degrade the names and the cause of these brave men, these SJWs are the Useful-Idiots of the globalist elite who seek to destroy the US. These globalists are essentially Cultural Marxists who wish to erode our sense of national pride, they seek to tear down our heroes, to criticize our culture, to throw open our borders to the barbarians, to infringe on our freedoms, and to propagandize our youth.

Do not be passive. These insidious SJWs are the enemies within, they must be fought with words where ever they dare speak their filth. Brave men should not be cowed by these weaklings. This is a Culture War. If you value your freedoms then fight for them. Nothing was ever gained without sacrifice as our Union and Confederate soldiers both know too well. God bless you all. Shalom bitches.

You already know my stance on preserving history. I really think that we should stop passing moral judgement on it myself, the past is full of uncomfortable truths, you can't erase what's happened and condemning it isn't going to change what's happened.

Also you can't be oppressed by statues and tombstones, that's just stupid.

wise words indeed. Pity more don't think that.

Bleh sorry about the previous response think I went off on a weird and unnecessary tangent

No problem

One thing I'm concerned about is he face of Stone Mountain in GA, particularly how the mountain itself is going to be treated if there is an agreement to remove the relief sculpture on it.

The mountain is a unique and delicate ecosystem and happens to also have been a sacred location to the Cherokee people in it's history... And I am part Cherokee dammit.

Yeah, that especially bothers me as well. Theres one bitch running for office demanding that it be sandblasted away.

I just have this gut feeling we will see it destroyed, much like how the Taliban destroyed that 1600 year old Buddha in Afghanistan years ago.

Also I think having a sculpture there is a hell of a lot better then having a big ugly scar. But it seems like the greater populous is in a book burning mood, or in this case an artwork destroying mood.

At this time I'd like to remind that Nazi Germany was a big fan of destroying modern art and architecture.

Desecration of graves is nigh unto blasphemy. Unless they control us through tradition, who is more powerless than the dead? They cannot defend themselves neither through word nor deed. And unless they left many powerful family and friends behind, who will stand up for them?

God will judge the living and the dead. We should not presume that we are worthy of such a task, nor should we allow others to presume it of themselves.