We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Janet McDonald • 1 year ago

Until Obama was elected, all this BS had settled down, and everyone was getting along. The educated and sensible people within this state, know the history, and everyone in those categories, are tolerant and understanding, unless and until outsiders come here, and want to change the history, heritage, and the residents.
Stop the hate damnit, and get over yourselves.

DougH2 • 1 year ago

That's kind of funny but to some extent true. Everyone in America got along fine until we got an African American President. Then everything became unhinged. This was more a consequence of him becoming President rather than anything he did as President.

Second, these monuments have become more of an issue as people have become better educated, or as you said, outsiders, perhaps who are better educated, have began to point out problems with monuments to traitors. Lee, Davis, and Jackson, now carved into Stone Mountain, were traitors. The fought against the USA for the CSA. According to Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution, that constitutes treason.

They are an indelible part of history. Nothing will change that. However, we don't have to continue to honor these traitors in our public spaces with monuments and statues.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

When were we ALL getting along? That's like make that make "America great again" crap. When was/has America been great for all Americans, please tell me?

Janet McDonald • 1 year ago

Wow! I was taught that if you go around killing statues, or even harming them, that you go to jail. If that had been what happened to the idiots that knocked over the statues, the first time, we wouldn't even be going there now. One day, people will get smart and enforce the damn laws

P Charles • 1 year ago

Why are we even discussing monuments that have been up a century? Here's why: because intolerant, anti-diversity, hateful, bigots are leading an attack on them. There is room in this state for everyone's monuments. To call on "the other guy's" monument to be taken down is regressive.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

So a monument to the people who fought to keep people enslaved needs to still stand as a constant reminder of a people being enslaved for hundreds of years? Wow

greg • 1 year ago

No one 'fought" to keep people enslaved just as very few doughy to free slaves. The monuments are a reminder of those who fought and were willing you die to defend their country, state, homes and family.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

And their property SLAVES keep bleaching. It was slavery slavery slavery

P Charles • 1 year ago

You see, that's a definition you conjure out of the air. Those who love the monuments have never said it had anything to do with slavery protection. Neither side said that as that war was going on. It was clearly a war for independence and over 90,000 blacks bore arms for the south. The current issue is a project of the Democratic Party. It is in jurisdictions controlled by their party where it is happening. It's ironic, too, because the current campaign to demagogue the issue and demonize a people to gain political power is exactly what the Democrats did in the 1950s. How can you be so easily manipulated?

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Omg "those who love the monuments never said it had anything to do with slavery prorection" what does that nean, just because they never said it means that, it has nothing to do with it? Look history is history, the confederate monuments are a reminder to an abhorrent period in America history. "Over 90,000 blacks bore arms for the South" my god that did it. Are you really trying to say that these 90,000 blacks who you say "bore arms", really fought to be slaves? Lordy, please tell me you are NOT trying to make that argument? What's the point? As if they had a choice, are you really trying to make an argument that they fought for the independence of the south, as you call it, to keep their family, friends, and THEM in slavery. And since you're so in favor of independence, then why not be just as accepting of the North fighting for the independence of the Slaves?

P Charles • 1 year ago

My point is exactly that they were NOT fighting for slavery. They were fighting for an independent south. Lincoln made repeated speeches making certain everyone knew he was not fighting to rid the country of slavery. In fact, he supported the proposed Corwin Amendment which would have guaranteed slavery forever if the south would just re-join the union. The south did not take him up on that because they were fighting for independence. See? You should really get some broad based education and give up the revisionist stuff everyone tells you but is not true. Please stop fighting the civil war.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Dude one question DID THE SOUTH HAVE SLAVES? HOW CAN YOU FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THE HELL? Your whole argument is not bright!! I'm no fan of Lincoln he had plans to scoop up all blacks and send them to the jungles of central America. So no love there at all. The confederate statues represent a brutality on an entire race of people and NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN WHITE WASH THAT. It is a dark and heinous period that should not force people. who don't want to be reminded of it, to be reminded of it. Remove them and put them in a museum or in a confederate cemetery

greg • 1 year ago

Your argument is not logical. The north had slaves too throughout the war ant even continued to admit new slave states during the war so the presence of slaves is NOT relevant to the moral concept of a war for political self determination.
Statues to American confederate soldiers represent all races. If YOU ate got removing these monuments to those willing to die for the defence of their people you are not only attacking white confederates but blacks too. Your attempts to white wash history into a pale evenly coated shame of the truth is untenable.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Check out the Cornerstone speech of Alexander Stephens the president of the confederacy. You can't separate the two Slavery was the bottom line. Its this history of this country plain and simple.

greg • 1 year ago

YOU need to research the cornerstone speech and history itself more.
Stephens was VICE president of the confedetacy. From a 15 minute speech he did make a short paragraph reference to slavery as "the cornerstone " of the country. You do realize he was referencing a federal court ruling from Pennsylvania that stated slavery as private property was the cornerstone of the country (usa). ? You also realize Stephens was AGAINST secession as he knew slavery was more protected in the federal union? Many people like to bring up that speech without knowing about it.
If you want a good pro secession cornerstone speech please read Toombs speech to the Georgia secession convention. It is very strong and never mentions slavery.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Please read one history book and not gone with the wind. Slavery was being aboloished in the North and in the South it was getting larger and attempting to branch out into freed states. Check out the Kansas/Nebraska act of 1854. You are not up on your history

greg • 1 year ago

Sherri your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. Many minorities fought for the South. Its an established fact. And no, they did not fight for slavery because the war was not over slavery. They fought because another nation invaded their country. Their individual motivations varied just as all people's motivations for anything vary but for whatever reason they fought and are represented by these monuments.
One cannot accept the idea that the north fought to free slaves because they said they did not. Lincoln plainly stated he did not start the war over slavery. The u.s. Congress passed resolutions saying the war was not fought to free slaves. The vast majority of union soldier's diaries and letters that mention why the soldier I'd fighting do not give "freeing slaves" as a reason.
Freeing slaves as a cause for the war is a modern-day myth created to help make a war if subjugation sound justified.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Show me, tell me or cite where I can find where black slaves took up arms and fought during the Civil War. You are the only person who has said this probably in the world. Because blacks knew what was coming way back during the 1850s when John Brown had his insurrection, Nate Turner and Harriet Tubman had already gone before him. The civil war started 2 yrs after John Brown was hanged. His actions were the catalyst to the moral issue that was facing the US and it was slavery, which lead ultimately to the civil war. The reason it was about Slavery is because the south was not fairly represented in Congress because its population was 40% black who could not vote. As such, their interests were not being evenly represented, hence the 3/5 law. They were heavily taxed, because, 1) less representation, but 2) they had a booming economy due to the slave trade. (Poor southerns) So I find your info not only hard to believe, but nonsensical. Nation what nation? It was the north against the south last time I checked those were both in America. If you want the truth, which I'm sure you don't, read up on Akexander Stephens that will tell you what it was all about.

greg • 1 year ago

Wow, talk about poor research and logic. Where to start?
1. The first person killed by John Brown's raid was a black slave named Hayward Sheppard who refused to join the plot when he discovered Brown at the ferry. He had a historic marker at Harper's ferry until naacp activist demanded it's removal back in the 90s because it was contrary to their lies.
2. The South asked that slaves count as 100% of a person, the north refused. Yes, it was about representation.
3. The South did not have a booming economy due to the slave "trade. All slaves brought to the Americas came on northern ships. None were registered to southern ports. The North made almost all of it's early money on the slave trade. The South made money on large scale staple crops such as cotton and tobacco that were in high demand in Europe. The plantation system largely used in the production of these crops did rely on slave labour, but not the slave "trade.
4. More than one nation can exist at the same time on thr American continent. Currently there are many. Mexico, Canada, USA, etc. At that time there was one more. The CSA. It was a separate nation.
5. If YOU research you will know Stephens was against secession and that in his cornerstone speech he was referencing a federal court case from Pennsylvania which affirmed slavery(as private property) was the cornerstone of the nation (usa). If you want a good pro secession cornerstone speech please read Toombs speech to the Georgia secession convention. It never mentions slavery.
6. Slaves who fought for the South. You really have never studied history if I'm the first person you've heard mention this. It's easy to find photos of black confederate veterans. They participated in confederate veteran conventions and parades. The attended monument dedications and received state pensions. Both free blacks and slaves did much for the war effort. White confederate veterans even defied the federal park services segregation rules AND demanded that the black veterans be allowed to attend and stay with them. You know little of our sharef history I think. Amy way some BASIC books: The Gray and the Black by Robert Durden (not pro South), Virginia's Black Confederates by Greg Eanes, Black Confederates In The U.S. Civil War by Ricardo j. Rodriguez, South Carolina's African American Confederate Pensioners 1923-1925 by South Carolina Department of Arhieves and History ( only covers a few counties, more volumes needed) , Black Southerners in Conferate Armies by J.H. Segars and Charles Kelly Barrow, Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees In Civil War Virginia by Ervin L. Jordan, jr, Blacks in Blue and Gray by H.C. Blackerby, and Forgotten Confederates by Charles Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segars, & R.B. Rosenburg are a few beginner books. They are not all pro South but each reveals some perspective or information. Also the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, the Confederate Veteran magazine (originals from UCV), state muster roles and pension roles (Read the originals as many progressives in the early 1900s marked out "soldier " and replaced with other terms but you can still find soldier with a line through it on the originals) and first hand accounts of foreign military observers. There is a ton of documentation that doesn't fit the progressive agenda. Blacks may have largely slaves but they were not docile observers. They acted.

DougH2 • 1 year ago

Or, our bottom of the barrel education system taught the lie about them that these people weren't traitors to our country. And now that we know that they were treasonous traitors, we've decided that we don't want to honor them in our public spaces anymore.

We now know that the Confederate States of America was a country. And that these men fought for the CSA against the USA. That's the textbook definition of a traitor.

So there's that.

greg • 1 year ago

You obviously cannot read if you believe that is the definition of a "traitor " lol. A traitor is home who fights against their OWN country. YOU state the CSA "was a country " . Confederate soldiers fought FOR their own country AGAINST a foreign invader so by your own words no treason was committed. I didn't realize they no longer taught definitions or logic in school.

DougH2 • 1 year ago

I'm not a product of Georgia's education system. Perhaps you are. If you are, they my assessment was correct. Those who left our country, the USA, and fought for the country called the CSA fought against our country. The CSA was an enemy of the USA.

Article III, Section 3, Par 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The Confederate State of America was another country. They had a Constitution, A President, Jefferson Davis, a Vice President, Alexander H. Stephens (from Crawfordville, GA) an army, a Navy, currency, their capital was Montgomery, AL and then moved to Richmond, VA. The CSA was a country that fought against the United State of America. Nearly all of their citizens were previously citizens of the USA.

The CSA attacked Fort Sumter, a fort of the USA Army on April 12, 1861. Also, the Gettysburg is in Maryland. Maryland wasn't part of the CSA. Why were the in the USA if they were simply fighting off invaders to their country?

After the war, Andrew Johnson issued a blanket pardon. It excluded government officials, officers in military over the rank of Colonel, and others. Robert E. Lee, for instance, died with his citizenship having never been restored. It wasn't restored for 105 years after his death in 1975. So Lee, as we see him on his horse, Traveler, wasn't a citizen of the USA, he was in the midst of treason.

greg • 1 year ago

You quote the wrong part of the constitution. Secession is legal. Start with amendment 10.
Just because a country fights against the USA that does NOT make it's people traitors. By your reasoning Germans, English, Japanese, etc are all traitors as they fought the USA at various times. One must be a citizen of the USA to commit treason. Confederates were not citizens thus no treason was committed. You yourself admit it was a separate country so you admit treason was not possible.
Technically the USA invaded fort Sumter first. Major Anderson and his garrison was stationed at fort moultrie. The status que agreement kept everything in place with no hostilities pending peaceful negotiations. Major Anderson broke the truce and under cover of darkness moved his troops to the unoccupied fort Sumter which was South Carolina territory at that moment. So major Anderson committed a hostile act, an act of war BEFORE the firing began. This act legally placed the blame on the union. Other hostile acts occurred in Pensacola, Florida prior to Sumter also.
Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania, not Maryland. Yes it was a defensive war. I'm sorry you have not cared enough aboit your country to study it's history. There were many reasons to invade. To relieve pressure on Virginia, to gain recognition from Britain by achieving a victory on northern soil, lots of reasons. A defensive invasion in no way changes the nature of the war.
Yes a blanket pardon was issued because Johnston's advisors allot demanded it. As they regularly stated the union would most likely lose a court case over the legality of secession. Just pardon everyone and be safe. President Davis was never put on trail for treason even though he asked to be tried because the federal government knew they would lose.
You are correct that Lee never regained his legal u.s. citizenship during his life time but that does not mean he committed treason. As you stated they were separate countries thus treason was not possible.

Barry Colbaugh • 1 year ago

"Hysteria and knee jerk reactions are not the solution. Sensitive subjects such as this deserve calm, practical and open dialogue. A house divided cannot stand, and Georgians must show the nation that we can unite for the greater good,” added Jones." Sounds like you just gave in to the hysteria? There was no dialogue before. Apparently we live in a world where everyone asks for tolerance unless your from the South.

Billy Bearden • 1 year ago

Never fails. Every time some false national narrative kicks up some lowlife weasel politician pops up spouting demogogery.

Leave history alone. Leave our Monuments alone. Or step down.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Would you say the same if the monuments were of atrocities that your ancestors went through? If someone killed your great grandfather and raped your great grandmother would you want a monument erected to the kilkers or supporters of that killing?

greg • 1 year ago

These monuments do not represent what you claim so your statement is untrue.

DougH2 • 1 year ago

They are also monuments of traitors to the USA.

greg • 1 year ago

Please study definitions more. A "traitor " works against his OWN country
The USA was a foreign country to confederate troops defending against illegal invasion so by definition treason was not committed and thus there are no monuments to "traitors ".
Dont worry, it's an easy mistake to make with our current poor education system.

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

Yeah right. I see YOU WOULD NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Check out The Border Ruffians.

greg • 1 year ago

What "question " do you reference? If you mean "enduring atrocities " then NO. I still do not want the monuments removed. Many of my people suffered greatly from many federal military units. The famous black units "the buffalo soldiers " killed many Indians brutally but i don't call for their monuments removal.
Disagreeing with what occurred does not mean a monument should go. You have suffered no worse than i.

Billy Bearden • 1 year ago

Miss Sherri,
There is a huge gold statue of General WT Sherman in New York.
His men burned homes and farms and businesses, kidnapped women and children, raped women, murdered men women and children both black and white, wantonly slaughtered livestock, stole valuables and destroyed what they couldn't carry.
After what he did here in the South, he repeated out west against the Native Americans.

His towering gilded in your face icon may upset me but I would never call for it's removal or destruction. Let it be. Leave history alone

Sherri Patterson • 1 year ago

And it should be taken down. Anything that was done during that time or aby other time, that did not represent the best of America and its inhabitants, should be taken down. But the question was if your family had endured the atrocities I spoke of, would you want it to stand as a monument to those atrocities? I'm making it personal because for a race of people it is personal. And the human factor in this conversation always always gets lost.