Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

And 40% of Virginians fought for the North, and a number of Counties split off in 1863 to form West Virginia, in opposition to the Confederacy.

Virginia also voted for Secession because they were a slave-holding State, which is relevant.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Session was on the cards for 30+ years prior to the war, iirc north caroline actually threatened it over cotton tariffs, all it needed was a spark and that was undoubtedly the abolition movement but that notwithstanding his reasoning was defence of his state and home above all else.

They actually voted to remain in the union and reversed their decision a week later when required to send troops to put the rebellion down in other states. Why didn't you mention that, not relevant.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

They should not tear down or move any of the Confederate statues as it is a reminder that war is never the answer to solve differences. Why after all this time should they be removed... you can't change history.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Some of the assertions being banded about is that, the President is all for KKK, and appreciates the support from David Duke and I was struggling to find any evidence to support this, but on the contrary, I have found more evidence that Donald Trump has publicly Disavowed the ugly, KKK, David Duke, many many many times over the years.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The majority of big media in the USA is left leaning, nothing except leaving will make them happy.

https://imgur.com/JfIQyhy
i'm sure having a paramilitary group on the streets will sort the USA problems in no time.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Alt-Rights see this as the thin end of the wedge so have put a line in the sand. Society moves and history is not told by statues.

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

Good documentary from Vice on Charlottesville
The mainstream media’s reaction to the march on the day felt like they were being taken by surprise but Vice was very well prepared
“It really is a triumph of old fashioned beat reporting,” said Josh Tyrangiel, executive vice-president of news at Vice. “She is able to distinguish between the different groups and the fact that she is capable of understanding them gives them some trust that she takes them seriously.”FT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Ugh I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Sarah Huckabee Sanders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41815358


Imo it's the worst form of political correctness and she's replying to questions asked about general Kelly's comments, which I don't agree with totally

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/john...civil-war.html

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

There is a difference between remembering history and historical revisionism. There is a movement to portray the civil war as the Lost Cause, a righteous battle that was heroically lost, and people are sensitive to comments that feed that goal. Huckabee is being disingenuous to pretend that these objections amount to attempts to erase history. They’re not. They’re precisely the opposite, an attempt to stop history of being revised to downplay the role of slavery in the South and the civil war.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The way to combat the extremist fringe isn't to demolish monuments or statues imo, it's to better educate the ones that can be reached

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

We should embrace our history not airbrush the bits we don't currently like.. However we shouldn't use rose tinted glasses to view the past.We should be prepared to unpick the threads from time to time using reasoned debate and look past propaganda.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

But most of those statues were put up in the early 20th Century, in support of the Jim Crow laws, and to further oppress/intimidate the black population of the South - that was historical revisionism in itself.

We should teach history, but why should a country celebrate the leaders of a failed rebellion which was founded on owning people as property?

But back to Kelly’s statement - what compromise was there? The compromise the Secessionists wanted was to own people - is that an acceptable compromise?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

That's the bit I don't agree with him on as any compromise would have probably led to a continuation of slavery to some degree, I seem to remember Lincoln's plan was to erode it over time rather than out right ban which would have been a compromise to obviously.

Can we stop all this rebellion and he's a traitor nonsense as well, Virginia had the right to succession in much the same way Scotland had the right to leave the UK if they wanted

http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023...3bfab9c2e.html

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

You have quoted an opinion piece, not a legal ruling - the author is a strong believer in States rights to secedeand is an advocate for the Free States Project, so he may not be the most objective source, as he is a Libertarian Economist who hates “Big Government".

He also said the Civil War wasn’t about slavery...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...iams120298.asp

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

As ever I look at what was quoted rather than the person that quoting it, is what he quoted historic, documented fact?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Including the power to enslave, torture, and kill people, sell the children and rape the women just because of the colour if their skin?