Civil War Memorials

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:07 pm

Something that struck me as somewhat odd...

In my travels across your ~~great~~ land, I've noticed that there are Civil War memorials and epitaphs throughout many Northern cities...

...but not so many Confederate markers in the South.

How come? (besides the obvious "they lost, get over it")

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:18 pm

you really need to travel more often or at least pay attention. the south is over run with civil war battlefields which kinda makes sense since most battles were home games for the south (typical SEC). i used to live in the nashville area and there was a battfield within spitting distance of my house and franklin had battle monuments all over as they were the site of a fairly major battle.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:27 pm

smackaholic wrote:you really need to travel more often or at least pay attention. the south is over run with civil war battlefields.

I'm not talking about commemorated battlefields...I'm talking gigantic statues of Union soldiers charging, bayonets fixed...
horses drawing cannons...that sort of stuff.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:16 pm

b-juice, are you still pretending to be a Canadian?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:26 pm

Are you still pretending to be something other than an escaped mental patient?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:34 pm

Martyred wrote:...but not so many Confederate markers in the South.

How come?

I'd say you haven't looked hard enough. At UT Austin there are statues of Lee, A.S. Johnston and Jeff Davis on the South Mall. Plus most if not all Army forts in the US are named after Civil War generals both North and South.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:38 pm

If you're talking Giants crazy, lock me up. Seriously, though, one could get immediately arrested and bundled out to Alcatraz in a wink during the war years of the late 1860's in San Francisco for merely muttering a criticism of ol' Honest Abe and his Manifest agenda.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:46 pm

Martyred wrote:I'm not talking about commemorated battlefields...I'm talking gigantic statues of Union soldiers charging, bayonets fixed...
horses drawing cannons...that sort of stuff.

They don't need memories of that stuff. They re-enact it.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:08 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Martyred wrote:I'm not talking about commemorated battlefields...I'm talking gigantic statues of Union soldiers charging, bayonets fixed...
horses drawing cannons...that sort of stuff.
They don't need memories of that stuff. They re-enact it.

And large bronze statues cost a shitload of money, which the industrialized cites of the north generally had much more of.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:12 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:If you're talking Giants crazy, lock me up. Seriously, though, one could get immediately arrested and bundled out to Alcatraz in a wink during the war years of the late 1860's in San Francisco for merely muttering a criticism of ol' Honest Abe and his Manifest agenda.

Really? Against whom was Lincoln leading us into battle during the war years of 1866-1969?

:batedbreath:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:15 pm

OCmike wrote: And large bronze statues cost a shitload of money, which the industrialized cites of the north generally had much more of.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:20 pm

OCmike wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:If you're talking Giants crazy, lock me up. Seriously, though, one could get immediately arrested and bundled out to Alcatraz in a wink during the war years of the late 1860's in San Francisco for merely muttering a criticism of ol' Honest Abe and his Manifest agenda.
Really? Against whom was Lincoln leading us into battle during the war years of 1866-1969?

:batedbreath:

I believe the point he was making is that presidents tend to get a little boost in their popularity ratings after getting themselves dead by means of lead poisoning. jfk was mediocre at best then oswald made him a hero.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:27 pm

smackaholic wrote:I believe the point he was making is that presidents tend to get a little boost in their popularity ratings after getting themselves dead by means of lead poisoning. jfk was mediocre at best then oswald made him a hero.

JFK had good to great approval numbers even before Oswald, Castro, the mob, J. Edgar Hoover and a cast of thousands turned his dome into a bloody pinata.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:31 pm

Martyred wrote:
OCmike wrote: And large bronze statues cost a shitload of money, which the industrialized cites of the north generally had much more of.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

Actually, it doesn't make any sense at all. You do realize that the most common artillery piece on either side, the 12 pounder Napoleon, was made of bronze? No? Of course not. Many of those statues were made of melted down cannons.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:37 pm

BSmack wrote: JFK had good to great approval numbers even before Oswald, Castro, the mob, J. Edgar Hoover and a cast of thousands turned his dome into a bloody pinata.

1. JFK's approval numbers were shit. Oswald rehabilitated his sorry ass in the eyes of the public

2. I notice you let LBJ off the hook in the assassination conspiracy. You should reconsider.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:43 pm

Cuda wrote:1. JFK's approval numbers were shit.

Shut the fuck up, idiot. Kennedy never dipped below 56% approval. That is the highest low approval in the modern era.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:45 pm

mvscal wrote: Many of those statues were made of melted down cannons.

Wouldn't Confederate artillery have been hauled back up North as the "spoils of war"?

If I recall, the South was pretty much plucked bare by the Northern aggressors.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:53 pm

More likely to local arsenals which were now returned to Federal control and then later decommissioned. The Napoleon was the last gun made of bronze to see active service so there really wasn't much use for them after the war. Another thing to consider is that the Federals had far more guns than the Confederates ever did.

Parts of the South were pretty well fucked but most of it wasn't and it was the South who started the war. The Union just finished it.

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:21 am

Cuda wrote:2. I notice you let LBJ off the hook in the assassination conspiracy. You should reconsider.

Really? Not all of the many conspiracy theories establish LBJ as a part for their thesis. You need to let someone know which one your tinfoil hat is tuned to...

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:58 pm

FLW Buckeye wrote:
Cuda wrote:2. I notice you let LBJ off the hook in the assassination conspiracy. You should reconsider.

Really? Not all of the many conspiracy theories establish LBJ as a part for their thesis. You need to let someone know which one your tinfoil hat is tuned to...

Well, no shit sherlock. He is one a few though. Everyone knows that the only ones in ALL the conspiracy theories are the jews. prolly just g0d still being sore at them for tacking up his boy.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:07 pm

Cuda wrote:
BSmack wrote: JFK had good to great approval numbers even before Oswald, Castro, the mob, J. Edgar Hoover and a cast of thousands turned his dome into a bloody pinata.
1. JFK's approval numbers were shit. Oswald rehabilitated his sorry ass in the eyes of the public

Not even close. JFK was as close to a dead lock cinch for re-election as there could have been.

2. I notice you let LBJ off the hook in the assassination conspiracy. You should reconsider.

I did include a cast of thousands. Talk to Felcho if you want an accurate accounting of every batshit crazy conspiracy theory under the sun. I'm not your guy.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:19 pm

Lee's Summit is now the sixth largest burg in this state, and guess who they named it after?

They've even got his bronzed mug on a wall 'round here somewhere...

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:26 pm

BSmack wrote:Not even close. JFK was as close to a dead lock cinch for re-election as there could have been.

JFK's last approval ratings were hovering at 30% at the end of his run. On average he was very high, but he wasn't trending too good by Dallas. It was very similar to W's daddy in his one term.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:31 pm

R-Jack wrote:
BSmack wrote:Not even close. JFK was as close to a dead lock cinch for re-election as there could have been.
JFK's last approval ratings were hovering at 30% at the end of his run. On average he was very high, but he wasn't trending too good by Dallas. It was very similar to W's daddy in his one term.

30% was his DISAPPROVAL rating going into Dallas. Please tell me you knew that.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind ... _lows.html

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:36 pm

I stand corrected.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:17 pm

the economy was rolling along fairly well. between that, kennedy being decent looking and having a young hottie wife, sure, he likely would have been re-elected.

none of this changes the fact that, on his record, he was mediocre at best.

catching a bullet or three was the best thing that ever happened to him, when it comes to how he is viewed today.

not saying that he wouldn't have gotten better given the chance. he couldn't have done worse than the dipshit that ~~killed~~ proceeded him.

there are kennedy ring kissers who are quite certain that he was getting ready to pull the plug on 'nam and say it is why he got himself kilt.

i honestly don't know enough to have an opinion on this.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:32 pm

smackaholic wrote:i honestly don't know enough to have an opinion on this.

You should have started with that.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:41 pm

no, i do know enough to know that his foreign policy consisted of the the bay of pigs fiasco and getting the ball rolling in 'nam. i will give him credit for doing a good enough job with the cuban missle crisis. overall, not the best record.

gets a thumbs up for nailing MM though.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:49 pm

smackaholic wrote:no, i do know enough to know that his foreign policy consisted of the the bay of pigs fiasco and getting the ball rolling in 'nam. i will give him credit for doing a good enough job with the cuban missle crisis. overall, not the best record.

gets a thumbs up for nailing MM though.

Ike got the ball rolling in Nam. Ike's people also green lighted planning for the Bay of Pigs. JFK's mistake was not nipping that idiotic plan in the bud.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:04 pm

smackaholic wrote:the dipshit that ~~killed~~ proceeded him.

How 'bout the one that succeeded him?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:10 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the dipshit that ~~killed~~ proceeded him.
How 'bout the one that succeeded him?

:doh: yeah, that's the word i was looking for. i doubt ike had a hand in it.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:15 pm

BSmack wrote:
smackaholic wrote:no, i do know enough to know that his foreign policy consisted of the the bay of pigs fiasco and getting the ball rolling in 'nam. i will give him credit for doing a good enough job with the cuban missle crisis. overall, not the best record.

gets a thumbs up for nailing MM though.
Ike got the ball rolling in Nam. Ike's people also green lighted planning for the Bay of Pigs. JFK's mistake was not nipping that idiotic plan in the bud.

OK, our meddling in nam did start with ike, but jfk accelerated it. and planning bay of pigs did happen under ike's watch.

whether or not it was a good idea is open to debate. kennedy yanking the rug out from under them in the middle of it all is not. he was the fukking boss. he should have either squashed it before it started or followed it through. he did neither.

sorry, but blaming it on ike works even less than blaming our current clusterfukk completely on bush.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:27 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the dipshit that ~~killed~~ proceeded him.
How 'bout the one that succeeded him?
:doh: yeah, that's the word i was looking for. i doubt ike had a hand in it.

Ike, of course, being the Prez who preceded JFK.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:06 pm

smackaholic wrote:OK, our meddling in nam did start with ike, but jfk accelerated it. and planning bay of pigs did happen under ike's watch.

whether or not it was a good idea is open to debate. kennedy yanking the rug out from under them in the middle of it all is not. he was the fukking boss. he should have either squashed it before it started or followed it through. he did neither.

sorry, but blaming it on ike works even less than blaming our current clusterfukk completely on bush.

Our meddling in Vietnam goes back further than Ike. Try Harry S. Truman. The problem was, we backed the Frenchies. Which was a horrible plan. Then, after the partition, Ike bought into the domino theory bullshit and got the ball rolling by sending in "advisers." Each President after Ike followed suit and doubled down, right through Nixon's first term. JFK was simply following the orthodox American foreign policy of his time, which held that Communism must be contained, lest we all end up wearing red stars and speaking Russian.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:38 pm

BSmack wrote:...lest we all end up wearing red stars and speaking Russian.

one can only dream

:(

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:46 pm

smackaholic wrote:none of this changes the fact that, on his record, he was mediocre at best.

i honestly don't know enough to have an opinion on this.

Obviously you don't know enough. Kennedy was the last good Democrat. He punked the Soviets in the Cuban Missile crisis. He cut taxes. He got NASA going. More importantly he fired up the country in a way that very, very few presidents could. Reagan immediately after Carter's dismal failure was another.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:49 pm

BSmack wrote: JFK was simply following the orthodox American foreign policy of his time, which held that Communism must be contained,

And it worked, too.

Ike bought into the domino theory bullshit

There nothing bullshit about it. The facts speak for themselves and the facts are the Communist insurgencies ripped through the entire region.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:32 pm

Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote:...lest we all end up wearing red stars and speaking Russian.
one can only dream

:(

What, you're also pretending to be a "socialist"?

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote: JFK was simply following the orthodox American foreign policy of his time, which held that Communism must be contained,
And it worked, too.

Ike bought into the domino theory bullshit
There nothing bullshit about it. The facts speak for themselves and the facts are the Communist insurgencies ripped through the entire region.

Categorical inverted bullshit, as usual. The Soviets were basically given Eastern Europe at Yalta, and while they proved heavy handed in retaining their control of Hungary, they never actually moved on any other nation. Meanwhile America's Cold War attitude toward Southeast Asia proved completely wrong from stem to stern, resulting in the murder of a million or so Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands of Cambodians and Laotians at the hands of the American forces.

JFK was about to suffer the greatest scandal in presidential history when he was conveniently murdered. In fact a congressional hearing was scheduled to convene the very day he was whacked to determine possible charges for his mob associations. As for the actual conspiracy, it was indeed the fake apartheid state--which was paralyzed with the real possibility of JFK cutting off all U.S. aid because of their illegal nukes program. Ben-Gurion had just been forced to resign as PM because of the pending crisis, and his replacement, Eshkol, saw the deed through and died in office. LBJ thought he was next and was literally cowering in fright until he was assured that he was in the clear--to tremendously boost U.S. aid to the fake state and back them entirely--just as it remains now, however disgraceful.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:37 pm

Are you attempting to suggest that Communist insurgencies did not take place throughout Southeast Asia? You sure about that, Felchie?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:which was paralyzed with the real possibility of JFK cutting off all U.S. aid

US aid to Israel added up to jackfuckingshit in 1963, you stupid asshole.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:04 am

mvscal wrote: He punked the Soviets in the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hardly, as soon as those ships turned around, the US pulled its missiles out of Turkey. He cut a deal and it wasn't advertised.