Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Texas university removes Confederate president statue from campus


Recommended Posts

The Jefferson Davis statue will be placed in a museum after failed appeal from Sons of Confederate Veterans to keep monument at University of Texas at Austin

 

 

Associated Press in Austin, Texas

 

Sunday 30 August 2015 19.38 BST

 

 

A statue of Jefferson Davis has been removed from its place on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin, after a failed appeal by a Confederate heritage group.

 

Crews could be seen on Sunday morning removing the statue of the Confederate president from its place near the university’s clock tower. University president Greg Fenves recently said the statue would be moved to a museum.

 

“This is an iconic moment,” said Gregory Vincent, the university’s vice-president for diversity and community engagement, according to the Austin American-Statesman. “It really shows the power of student leadership.”

 

The statue has been a target of vandalism as well as criticism that it is a symbol of racism and discrimination. Following the shooting dead in June of nine members of a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, Confederate symbols nationwide are being re-considered.

 

Dylann Roof faces charges in the Charleston case. In pictures posted online with a “manifesto” which espoused racial hatred, he was pictured with a Confederate battle flag.

 

In July, South Carolina removed the flag from a Confederate monument on the grounds of its statehouse.

 

In the case of the Jefferson Davis statue in Austin, university officials halted earlier plans to move the statue after the Sons of Confederate Veterans asked a judge to stop them.

 

The Confederate group compared the proposal to relocate the statue to the Islamic State group destroying artifacts in the Middle East. State district judge Karin Crump, however, ruled last week that Texas officials have the authority under state law to decide where the statue should stand.

 

Statues of other Confederate figures Confederate generals Robert E Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston, and Confederate postmaster general John Reagan, will remain in their places on campus.

 

 

1000.jpg?w=700&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10
A statue of Confederate president Jefferson Davis is moved from its location in front of the school’s main tower the University of Texas campus on Sunday.
Photograph: Eric ***/AP
 
 
 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad Day For My Family. The reality of  brother against brother should never be forgotten and to say that the south was all wrong,  just shows the mentality of a modern day racist . 

 

How could slavery be considered anything other than wrong?  I understand the southern states standing up for their rights.....but the overwhelming cause of the Civil War was slavery, plain and simple.  I might be mental...but I'm certainly no racist.   :peace: 

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How could slavery be considered anything other than wrong?  I understand the southern states standing up for their rights.....but the overwhelming cause of the Civil War was slavery, plain and simple.  I might be mental...but I'm certainly no racist.   :peace: 

 

GO RV, then BV

Debates concerning the true causes of the Civil War are unlikely to cease. Historians often cherry pick evidence that supports preconceived notions while large quantities of contradictory material. What that impulse is fueled by a fervent desire to find reconciliation and consensus,as was the case after the Civil War, the work of the historians becomes especially murky. The cause of the Civil War was traced back to tensions that formed early in a nation's history. The no# 1 reason was that there were economic and social differences between the North and the South. And while there were many other reasons slavery was not at the top of the list. So you are not 100% correct on your assessment Shabs which leads back the opening paragraphs that I shared with you. Thanks

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

***///

 

Succumbing to ignorance - scrubbing society of it's history - removing every vestige which could be

 

used as a reminder, a teaching tool, an educational opportunity.

 

Sanitized for the sake of those too ignorant, lazy, brainwashed to bother understanding...

 

Should the remnants of Auschwitz be next...?

 

Take away the Bible, remove the guns, tear down the statues, hide the flags....Remove words, gender-identity,

 

and you remove ideas, knowledge, understanding -- history.

 

 

and in doing so re-enslave minds... thus enabling history to repeat itself.

 

The narrow-mindedness, short-sightedness of political correctness is CRIMINAL.

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Debates concerning the true causes of the Civil War are unlikely to cease. Historians often cherry pick evidence that supports preconceived notions while large quantities of contradictory material. What that impulse is fueled by a fervent desire to find reconciliation and consensus,as was the case after the Civil War, the work of the historians becomes especially murky. The cause of the Civil War was traced back to tensions that formed early in a nation's history. The no# 1 reason was that there were economic and social differences between the North and the South. And while there were many other reasons slavery was not at the top of the list. So you are not 100% correct on your assessment Shabs which leads back the opening paragraphs that I shared with you. Thanks

 

Fair enough, Tex.   :peace: 

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn shame.diversity destroys cultures.the civil war like all other wars was fought over money.Abraham Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa after the war.not because he was racist but wanted to send them back home.congress shot that down.written history is full of holes and mostly wrong.

Edited by stealthwarrior
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn shame.diversity destroys cultures.the civil war like all other wars was fought over money.Abraham Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa after the war.not because he was racist but wanted to send them back home.congress shot that down.written history is full of holes and mostly wrong.

 

It is worse than you could imagine stealth, but true words for sure. Fascinating how

we accept any history written by the victors, tailored to fit their version of events. Been

this way throughout history, it is always written by the victors, but often lacks truth.

 

Wars are always about money, it is a very profitable business.

Edited by Jim1cor13
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How could slavery be considered anything other than wrong?  I understand the southern states standing up for their rights.....but the overwhelming cause of the Civil War was slavery, plain and simple.  I might be mental...but I'm certainly no racist.   :peace: 

 

GO RV, then BV

I think slavery is horrible and worng as well Shabs, I couldn't agree more. But slavery was simply the window dressing that was sold to allow the Federal Government to centralize more power and $$$:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-06/news/bs-ed-gettysburg-20130706_1_slavery-constitutional-convention-secession

 

Tariffs, not slavery, precipitated the American Civil War
July 06, 2013

Arthur Hirsch's recent articleicon1.png about the Battle of Gettysburg reveals a disturbing ignorance of the political dynamics that brought this nation to a war that 150 years later remains the most cataclysmic event in our history ("A defining day relived," July 2).

It accepts the shallow but unchallenged premise that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simplyicon1.png cannot be reconciled.

The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession, which occurred despite the undeniable fact that the slave states could not have hoped for better protection of slavery than that afforded by the U. S. Constitution — provided they remained in the Union.

pixel.gif
pixel.gif

Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the Southicon1.png was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.

Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. governmenticon1.png. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government'sicon1.png costs.

Campaigning At New York's Cooper Union, Lincoln, arguing for unlimited federal control of slavery in America'sicon1.png territories, seduced his audience with research disclosing how 21 of the 39 Signers of the Constitution, by joining elsewhere in various other acts of legislation that awarded this territorial authority to the U. S. government, revealed that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention included a clear majority whose intent had in fact been that this authority be granted to the federal government.

But in 1860, the overriding issue of the day was not slavery in the territories: it was secession. And when addressed in this latter context, Lincoln's same research undeniably proves there had been majority intent among delegatesicon1.png to the 1787 Convention that each state was to retain a permanent right of exit. Ten of Lincoln's foregoing 21 Signers represented slave states. Absent a retained secession option, not one of them would have signed a Constitution that empowered the U. S. to prohibit territorial slavery. Alone, the Northwest Territory represented the potential in 1787 for five new non-slave states, which would promptly have reduced the Old South to just one-third of eighteen total states: and the Constitution they were crafting was to permit any amendment that was opposed by only one-quarter of the states — including one that could abolish slavery if six more non-slave states were thereafter admitted. Lincoln could not have failed to recognize that the Signers had been in agreement upon a right to secede, without which no constitution would have gelled at all. Accordingly, secession remained in 1860 a right both legal and honorable.

In the face of all these considerations, Lincoln could have proposed a Southern slave emancipation reciprocated by sweeping federal fiscal reform that would replace the protective tariff with a nationwide income taxicon1.png. Instead, Lincoln's remedy was the catastrophic one that denied Southerners their exit by military force: which represented exercise of a federal authority conspicuously absent from the all-inclusive list of powers granted by the Constitution to the U. S. government. Such a transformative quid-pro-quo may or may not have proven achievable. But in as much as it was not even attempted, no Gettysburg visitor should ever be led to believe that the Civil War objective of the U.S. was anything other than preservation of its protective tariff in the Old South.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is worse than you could imagine stealth, but true words for sure. Fascinating how

we accept any history written by the victors, tailored to fit their version of events. Been

this way throughout history, it is always written by the victors, but often lacks truth.

 

Wars are always about money, it is a very profitable business.

 Exactly... Goes back to Brennus with his "Vae Victis" ( Woe to the Vanquished)

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis

Link to post
Share on other sites

How could slavery be considered anything other than wrong?  I understand the southern states standing up for their rights.....but the overwhelming cause of the Civil War was slavery, plain and simple.  I might be mental...but I'm certainly no racist.   :peace: 

 

GO RV, then BV

Need to go read history! I'm no racist either, served in the Air Force with a lot of brave men of all races! But the civil war for Texas. was not just about slavery! The University, was wrong, on this, but Austin is nothing now but a bunch of LIBTARDS! It makes me sick! To watch these pukes ! Nuff said! P.S In Texas we judge a man or women by their character not the color of skin! Slavery is wrong! :salute:  

:twocents:

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Aren't Public Memorials to KKKer Robert Byrd Getting Purged?

 

In their headlong rush to remove all public monuments to the Confederacy, its warriors, and the dead-enders who fought on its behalf after the Civil War ended, liberals are curiously overlooking a prime offender -- one of their own.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh wasn't going to let this pass unnoticed.

 

On his show Friday (July 10, 2015), Limbaugh talked about the Memphis city council voting unanimously to move the remains of Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife, along with a statue of Forrest, from a public park to a location still undetermined.

Forrest is possibly better known for a horrible distinction -- as one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. And among its devout followers in the mid-20th century was a West Virginian Democrat pol named Robert Byrd, who later ascended to the highest reaches of the US Senate and was continually applauded, at least on the left, as revered elder statesman.

Why isn't Byrd getting the same bum's rush as Bedford, Limbaugh asked.

 

Listen to audio… https://soundcloud.com/bogtrotter-1/limbaugh-why-arent-public-memorials-to-ex-kkker-robert-byrd-getting-purged

 

Begin Transcript

 

OK, let me guess, folks -- some of you when you heard me mention the name Nathan Bedford Forrest, it rang a bell. You couldn't quite place it but you had heard the name, right? And then when I said Southern general, Confederate general, oh yeah, yeah yeah. Well, let me tell you about Nathan Bedford Forrest. You see, they already in Memphis renamed the name of the park. Now they're going to remove the bones and his poor wife whose name still hasn't appeared in the story.

But Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Democrat. He was such a prominent Democrat, such a radical Democrat, he helped found the Ku Klux Klan. Now who do you think honored this guy in the first place?! Democrats! It wasn't a bunch of Republicans that built statues and flagpoles and memorials to this guy. Who did it?! It was Democrats!

 

I'm going to tell you something else, folks -- all of this is pee pee, ca ca, do do. I am not going to believe that the Democrats are serious about removing the scourge of the past until they rename everything in West Virginia after Robert W. Byrd (Byrd's middle initial was actually C., for Carlyle), because you ought to see the list of things that are named after Robert W. Byrd in West Virginia. It would take you I don't know how many pieces of paper to list everything -- the highways, the rest areas, the junk yards, the buildings, the parks. It is embarrassing the number of places in West Virginia which are named after Robert W. Byrd, who was a grand klegal and a klingon or some such thing in the Ku Klux Klan. Well, he was! And I don't see anybody making a mad dash to dig him up and move him somewhere else and to strip ev-, I mean, the federal buildings in that state, every damn one of 'em practically is named after him -- the highways, the turnpikes, the thoroughfares, the back streets, the back alleys! He was the Democrat majority leader of the Senate, was considered the dean of the Senate, he was a grand klingon in the Ku Klux Klan for crying out loud!

They can talk about the Confederate flag all they want and Bill Clinton, he's out (mimicks Clinton), I started cryin', I almost started cryin' when I saw that flag come down today, oh my -- he raised the damn thing in Arkansas! In memory of his mentor, J. William Fulbright, also a segregationist senator, unrepentant segregationist. This is such ca ca, folks. At the end of the day, all of it, you got John Lewis in there and all these other people and the impression that they're leaving is that the Republicans suffer another big defeat today as the Confederate flag is removed in South Carolina. The Republicans had nothing to do with putting the Confederate flag up! And the Republicans had nothing to do with everything in West Virginia being named after Robert Byrd.

 

 

End Transcript

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.