Not "Foolish" To Remove Confederate Statues From Public Squares -- It's What We Do To Be Decent Human Beings And Fellow Americans To Black Americans
That "so foolish" remark is how the President put it -- and, as usual -- as John McWhorter pointed out on CNN, it comes from an impulse appropriate to a 12-year-old boy.
There's the argument some are dragging out that Jefferson owned slaves (so shouldn't we yank his statues and pictures, too?). I'm disgusted by that; however, it's a side note to what he was to this country -- to all he gave to this country. So, no, I'm not for going around the country and doing searching background checks on all the subjects of monuments and pulling them down.
Having monuments to confederate leaders in public squares, however, is like naming a school "Hitler Junior High."
It's a horrible slap in the face to black citizens and it makes me sadder than any of the stuff that we've seen in the news lately.
Yes, disgustingly, people are actually fighting to have monuments up that glorify people who believed blacks to be inferior and fought to the death to protect that view and the shameful capture and enslavement of other human beings that went with it.
It is the most egregious form of theft that is not maiming or murder to capture another person and force them to work. The things that came with it in America -- tearing children away from mothers, raping women, the devaluing of black lives -- are shameful and terrible.
It tells black citizens "You aren't really one of us; you don't matter," to have these statues glorifying those who fought for the confederacy.
Being against this doesn't mean being against state's rights; it means being against ugliness that I wish had no place in the 21st Century.
I'm not saying the statues should be melted down. I see them like I do the bunkers and items of the Holocaust: they should be preserved to chronicle this terrible time in our history and the terrible crime of enslaving other human beings.
Moving on to the Civil War, a guy I went to high school with points out that our Civil War class teacher, Mr. Finney, taught us that the Civil War was about state's rights. And it was, but they weren't arguing about the state's rights to decide how to pay for roads; it was a fight over the issue of slavery:
Regarding that, Jeff Schweitzer writes at HuffPo:
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
...Ah, yes, we also have the Confederate flag. What exactly about the war's history would lead one to fly a Confederate flag over a state capitol building, or paste one on a F150 bumper or wear one on a T-shirt? Does the flag indicate pride about the effort to protect slavery? Or attempting to secede from the Union? For starting a war in which two percent of the population died? For losing the war? These are odd banners to carry around for nearly 150 years. Perhaps the pride comes from the fact that the South stood up to a greater power, at least checking or slowing the pace of an expanding federalism. But even that does not pass the smell test; by starting but then losing the war the South created the exact opposite effect, solidifying federal power like never before.
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves. Neither cause should induce pride. As we celebrate this 150 year anniversary, the South should humbly honor the victory of the North and ask forgiveness for waging a bloody war against reason and decency.
On a related note, when the racist sphincters were marching and chanting, "Jews will not replace us!" my first thought was, "We already have, you inbred losers."
Also, as I think I mentioned the other day, if you've got cancer or some terrible disease, you'd best hope that nobody murdered the smartypants Ashkenazi Jew who's disproportionately likely to find a cure.
Wikipedia, List of Jewish Nobel laureates:
The Nobel Prize is an annual, international prize first awarded in 1901 for achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. An associated prize in Economics has been awarded since 1969.[1] Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 881 individuals,[2] of whom 197 - 22.4% - were Jewish or people of Jewish descent,[Note 1] although Jews and people of Jewish descent comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population.[3]Jews or people of Jewish descent have been recipients of all six awards, including 41% of economics, 28% of medicine, 26% of physics, 19% of chemistry, 13% of literature and 9% of all peace awards.[4]
Or, as we like to say in Heeb-land, "suck it, racists!"
UPDATE: @ClayRoutledge, right on:
150 or 200 years ago, society was different and culture were different. Nonetheless, history *is*. That's where we came from. Not only the civil war, but afterwards: there's a reason that people were motivated to create these monuments. It's worth understanding why.
Bet: Almost no one involved in taking down these monuments has any idea of who the monuments honor, or why society once decided that they deserved a monument.
The Antifa scum are cultural terrorists. They don't care and have no interest in understanding Southern culture, either then or today. They only care about the personal power they can gather, by destroying. They're no better than ISIS, blowing up historical monuments.
a_random_guy at August 17, 2017 11:30 PM
They're no better than ISIS, blowing up historical monuments.
They're not the ones making those decisions; the decisions are made by mayors and city councils who decide what goes in the public square.
The Antifa scum are cultural terrorists. They don't care and have no interest in understanding Southern culture, either then or today.
Please calm down. Southern culture encompasses everything from Eudora Welty to Tennessee Williams, from Bessie Smith to, well, Southern Culture on the Skids. Many of the Antifa people are residents of the places where they live; they're not dropped in from Mars to Charlottesville or Nashville or New Orleans.
History exists; it's worth teaching and understanding, monuments or not. Anyone is free to erect a statue to Robert E. Lee or Robert Q. Lewis, to fly the Confederate battle flag or the Pokemon flag (I assume there's one) in his or her front yard; the public square is a different matter. If a city or town felt the desire to erect a thousand Lee statues on their property, I would support their right to do so, as I do the right of those to take them down. But to suggest their removal is somehow comparable to ISIS is the argument of a drama queen.
Kevin at August 18, 2017 12:12 AM
I think even the argument that the Civil war was about states rights (specifically southern states rights to be left alone) is complete bullshit. See the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, where southerners tried to use "distant federal power" to force northerners to capture escaped slaves.
Abersouth at August 18, 2017 3:03 AM
> Please calm down. [...T]o suggest
> their removal is somehow comparable
> to ISIS is the argument of a drama
> queen.
☑ Yes
This is actually kinda cute.
What's weird is how many of these deeply heartfelt expressions of Confederate warrior pride are from the very late 19th century and across the twentieth... As if their admirers had been given no other examples of fighting courage since Sherman's march.
Or, as if they have something else on their minds.
Crid at August 18, 2017 3:52 AM
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. You did not care about these monuments yesterday, not at all – and let's just say that I snap my fingers and they are all gone. Now what?
The same race baiters will simply turn to the next intentionally generated offense, because there is big money to be made from race war. You may hate the Nazis in Charlottesville, and for good reason – but they are not calling for killing cops and the president, and that is not making the violence approved by Antifa and BLM go away.
Intelligence and study is not part of this issue: a cursory examination of the biography of Robert E Lee exposes the incredible arrogance on the part of someone who condemns him today. His actual opponents in battle had nothing bad to say about him. Apparently, it depends on the hipster sitting in Starbucks to tell the truth for us all.
Perhaps you heard of idiots defacing the statue of Andrew Jackson in New Orleans. They had no idea he was not Stonewall Jackson.
Radwaste at August 18, 2017 4:07 AM
Or Antifa, BLM and other fascist organizations who claim to be anti-fascist could just get over it.
The statues have been there for decades, some for over a century, and no one's made a peep about them (including you, Amy).
It isn't about being "decent human beings." It's about the soi-disant anti-fascists seeing how much control they can exert.
And you, Amy, much to my surprise, seem to be quite happy to be their willing dupe.
Patrick at August 18, 2017 5:30 AM
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. You did not care about these monuments yesterday, not at all
I didn't think about it until it was brought to my mind in the news.
I then realized how awful it would be to be a black person in the South and to walk past a monument glorifying someone who fought to institutionalize their view that blacks were inferior and should be "owned" by white people.
The fact that a few ignoramuses don't understand the difference between Andrew Jackson and Stonewall Jackson is a side note.
The same goes for the fact that some of those protesting may have thrown a punch. Immaterial to the greater point.
Amy Alkon at August 18, 2017 5:30 AM
It will all work out in the long run. The alt left will keep escalating what statues need to be torn down. At some point it will become too difficult to justify attacking our history as justice. There will be a nationalist / populist backlash to all of this. Trump sells nationalism and populism better than any other politician, so his support will grow.
Snoopy at August 18, 2017 5:30 AM
It isnt going to be very long before WWII is revised historically into a race based hate war against the Japanese.
I dont particularly care about the confederate monuments. What I do fear is rule by the mob and the scary thought that nothing should commemorate any event or person that has become historically suspect for being guilty retroactively of impure motivations.
It is going to be hysterical when they get around to Woodrow Wilson and Robert Bird, but who am I kidding? This is a war on rednecks, not actual racisits.
As someone pointed out Southern popular bule collar culture was off limits when the solid south was safely in the Democrtic party fold. Now that they arent, there is going to be hell to pay.
Isab at August 18, 2017 5:41 AM
"It tells black citizens "You aren't really one of us; you don't matter," to have these statues glorifying those who fought for the confederacy."
I'll believe it when the mob turn against the pro-Slavery party the Democrats.
Joe J at August 18, 2017 5:52 AM
There have been demands for the removal of Andrew Jackson statutes from New Orleans (the city he saved from British rule) to Jacksonville. He was a slaveholder and he committed genocide against Native Americans, so his statue has to go.
And then? Who's next?
If we limit our statuary and street naming to heroes with no skeletons in their closets, we'll have nameless streets and barren parks.
We're a democracy. If the majority says the statue should come down, down it should come. But let's give this some thought before we spend millions on removing statues of anyone who every committed a sin or did something in the past that we don't like today.
One could argue that slavery was not a direct cause of the Civil War. However, without it, Southern cultural and economic development would have been dramatically different, negating several of the factors that caused the North-South bitterness.
______________________________
This idiocy has come about because we're teaching our children history without context.
Slavery was definitely at the root of the conflict between the industrialized North and the agrarian South. Without slavery, the South would not have had the captive labor that allowed it to undercut world cotton prices. Southern planters would not have become as dependent upon a single labor-intensive crop and the exportation of that crop which made it vulnerable to tariff retaliation. Southern society would not have developed into a pseudo-feudal system with almost no middle class (the class that drove Northern industrialism). Immigrants would not have avoided the South (Southern cities had no work since the South had no need for cheap immigrant labor).
Southern plantations were self-sufficient, so there was little need for middle class labor (e.g., blacksmiths, coopers, wheelwrights, etc.). The South developed a very small and insular middle class, unlike the North which had a vibrant middle class.
Was slavery a uniquely American disease? No.
What's more, people today don't understand how integral to the Southern economy slaves were.
Slavery was huge money. The amount of wealth tied up in slaves was incredible. Slaves were used as collateral for public works projects, private investment, and business loans. An estimated $4 billion dollars of Southern wealth (back when $4 billion was real money) was tied up in slaves. Simply freeing all the slaves would have bankrupted the entire region.
Back then, it was not uncommon for gentlemen to be in debt. Credit was arranged regularly with the debts settled by the sale of the next year's crop or the issuance of the next annuity check. George Washington was admired by his contemporaries because he was able to extricate himself from the then-normal cycle of endless debt and repayment. Jefferson, Madison, and others of their class spent their entire lives in debt. Slaves were often used as a hedge against the failure of the next crop.
Freeing one's slaves on one's death bed was akin to impoverishing one's heirs as one usually left considerable debt upon death.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2017 6:17 AM
A friend of mine named Robert Lee [insert last name here], named for his grandfather who was named in 1890 for Robert E. Lee, was told by a random woman in the grocery store checkout line that he should change his name because it is racist.
Um.
Conan the Grammarian at August 18, 2017 6:24 AM
Anyone is free to...fly the Confederate battle flag
Wanna bet?
When antifa shows up at your door and throws a brick thru your window, you may have a different take. You think the howling rage mob will live and let live?
Isab gets to the nut of the problem: What I do fear is rule by the mob. You think they'll stop there? they have power. It may be unearned power, but they have power.
This will not end well. Oh, hey, check it out:
https://twitter.com/BevHillsAntifa/status/897893175607517185
I R A Darth Aggie at August 18, 2017 6:30 AM
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/08/17/told-you-this-was-coming-vice-hammered-for-deleted-tweet-about-mt-rushmore/
You know, the Democrats have spent decades dividing people up by tribal affiliation, but now get bent out of shape when white people decide that they need to get tribal, too.
As you sow, so shall ye reap.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 18, 2017 6:34 AM
"I then realized how awful it would be to be a black person in the South and to walk past a monument glorifying someone who fought to institutionalize their view that blacks were inferior and should be "owned" by white people."
Do you really think this was Robert E. Lee's motivation for taking command of the confederate forces?
By the time of the civil war many of the plantation slaves were as white as you and I.
You do know, dont you, that the states that sided with the confederacy weren't the only places in the US where slavery was legal don't you?
It also wasn't aboliished in Great Britain and all her colonies until 1843.
In fact the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in states that were in rebellion.
Most of the native American tribes practiced slavery right up until the end of the civil war. The Cherokees were particularly large slave holders.
Also slavery was the norm in all parts of the world up until the 19th century?
And it still is ubiquitous in northern Africa and the middle east?
What do you call all those Arab and Farsi women with no rights, bought and sold into marriage by their fathers and other male relatives?
The SJW's will condescendingly tell you "it's their culture" because millions of Arab women in slavery dont serve any of their political purposes.
Isab at August 18, 2017 6:38 AM
The same goes for the fact that some of those protesting may have thrown a punch. Immaterial to the greater point.
The greater point is the rule of law. And it isn't always punches being thrown.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/26/professor-suspected-in-berkeley-bike-lock-attack-arraigned-in-oakland-court/
There's a reason why some on the left say it is acceptable to punch nazis: it gives cover to those who would otherwise be committing crimes.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 18, 2017 6:41 AM
Maoism. Stalinism. On the march in America.
"Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past."
Mike Gallagher at August 18, 2017 6:47 AM
"At some point it will become too difficult to justify attacking our history as justice. There will be a nationalist / populist backlash to all of this."
Really? Wake me when they start getting shot in the streets by deer rifles with telescopic sights.
vanderleun at August 18, 2017 8:15 AM
IRA Darth Aggie:
Yes, I do wanna bet. People fly it all the time down here.
There is a reason that Florida doesn't have a lot of Black Lives Matter demonstrations blocking traffic and harassing people.
Actually, it's several reasons. 1) Florida is concealed-carry only. Accosting someone on the street is taking your life in your own hands. You don't know who's carrying.
2) Stand Your Ground. No one in Florida has any duty to retreat from a place they have the right to be.
3) Florida is one of two states that a friend of mine, a lawyer, refers to as "presumptive self-defense." Meaning that if someone pleads self-defense, if the police cannot find evidence to prove otherwise, no arrests are made. In most other states, police have to find evidence that corroborates the claim of self-defense, otherwise they have to arrest.
4) We're a disproportionately large elderly population. And they don't put up with much.
Antifa shows up to give someone a hard time about their confederate flag? There will be dead Antifa members on the front lawn. And the cops will simply show up and having the bodies taken away. And for the resident of that home, life will continue as normal without missing a beat.
Patrick at August 18, 2017 8:22 AM
Maoism. Stalinism. On the march in America.
"Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past."
It's a stretch to equate towns deciding what belongs in the public square to Maoism or Stalinism — both of which specifically disempower people from making such decisions — but keeping such statues or removing them in no way "controls the past" or changes history.
I still don't understand why people from outside a community think they can dictate what that community chooses to put in the public square. The wishes of the people of Berkeley, California should have no weight in the decisions of Garland, Texas on such matters, and vice versa.
Kevin at August 18, 2017 8:49 AM
Two compelling sentiments in my T-feed, essentially back-to-back!
First!
Second!
Okay! I'll be back to quibble with all of you later!
Crid at August 18, 2017 8:55 AM
Patrick, I live in Tallahassee, and while I would expect to be eventually exonerated, I'm pretty the prosecutors would go full bore at me, given how blue this town is, and how much they hate SYG.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. That will be antifa's undoing: they'll go to far, and bite of more than they can chew.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 18, 2017 9:05 AM
Now that I think about it, we should push this to the extreme.
Woodrow Wilson, racist
Franklin D. Roosevelt, racist
Lyndon B. Johnson, racist
everyone who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Wilson segregated the federal government after Republicans desegregated things in DC. And that was only 100 years ago. FDR, in addition to interning citizens of Japanese ancestry, put forth public works money that created segregated neighborhoods in the New Deal. LBJ famously said "I'll have those [nword] voting democrat".
Rename all the buildings named for them. Tear down all their monuments. Erase their memories.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 18, 2017 9:16 AM
Rename all the buildings named for them. Tear down all their monuments. Erase their memories.
Aggie, if they're in your city or town, make your voice heard.
Kevin at August 18, 2017 9:37 AM
Ask your SJW friends if they know which flag on the South Carolina statehouse flew over the Confederate army.
They'll say it's been taken down already, because all they know is the Stars & Bars (incidentally, the theme of a Clinton/Gore banner for the 1992 campaign) and Nikki Haley granted activists that dream...
...leaving the SC state flag, which you may know as the Crescent & Palm, which ALSO marched with the South.
--------
"Actually, it's several reasons."
Yeah, those sure made quick work of that Zimmerman case, didn't they?
--------
Here's what we do to be "fellow Americans" to black Americans. Nothing works or is ever enough.
Radwaste at August 18, 2017 9:52 AM
For the record, here's my take on the Civil War: it was a Greek tragedy. The South experienced trauma and loss, but it did so because of its own hubris. What was that hubris? Slavery was an aspect of it, but it was in this larger context: The war, from the South's point of view, was an attempt to stop time. Industrialization was coming; it was going to mechanize farm labor. The cotton gin had already displaced some labor, and it was becoming apparent that further mechanization was going to displace more. Guess what that was going to do to investments in slaves? In another 20-30 years, slaveholders were going to be wiped out financially.
The slaveholders were among the financial and governing elite in the South. Dirty little secret: A lot of non-moneyed Southerners were not all that keen on the war. This included a lot of the dirt farmers in the Appalachians, who were trying to scratch out a living on poor soil. They didn't own slaves because they couldn't afford any, and they had little love for the Southern elites. Some of you may have seen the move Free State of Jones. There was an even larger movement than that afoot that would have tried to establish a new state stretching from northeast Alabama through eastern Tennessee and Kentucky, that was going to secede from the Confederacy and declare itself neutral. The likelihood of being attacked from both sides was one of the main things that stopped it.
The hold-back-time nature of the Southern revolt extended to the suppression of industry in the South itself. It was difficult for anyone who wanted to set up a factory to purchase land. Machinery had to be imported from the North or from England, and anti-industry forces attacked shipments. Factories and mines drew harassment and sometimes armed attacks. It's not widely known now, but there was the beginnings of an iron industry in Selma, Alabama. But the people doing it couldn't draw investors, and so it remained primitive. When the Confederate Navy built the ironclad Virginia out of the remains of the Merrimack, they had to use the fire-damaged Merrimack's engine, because even in that crippled state, it was still better than anything Southern industry could build. Eventually the North was going to win because of its huge industrial advantage, no matter how well the Southern troops fought. The turn-back-time Southern revolt had planted the seeds of its own destruction. Slavery just exacerbated the problem by tying up financial resources and preventing the South from going in the direction it needed to go.
Now: A whole lot of people in the South condemn, without reservation, the Charlottesville white nationalists. However, when they do so, the response from the Left is "You're lying; you're really a racist". So saying and believing the right things gets them no further than saying and believing the wrong things. Further, Southerners observe the huge difference between the universal condemnation of the white nationalists and the fawning treatment and approval that Antifa and BLM receive from the political elites and the media, and it comes across as a huge slap in the face. For Southerners, moral behavior is punished exactly the same as immoral behavior.
So that's why people fight over the statues. Because they know that conceding the point just opens them up to further attacks from the SJWs. The Left isn't interested in common ground; demanding and receiving concessions is just a pretense for moving the goalposts. They should not be surprised that a lot of people are done with that game.
Cousin Dave at August 18, 2017 10:13 AM
Send everything offensive down the Memory Hole and punish those who practice Wrongthink.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 18, 2017 10:14 AM
"I didn't think about it until it was brought to my mind in the news."
I think you are wrong on this.
Our cities are filled with reminders of how different things were before. Removing those things will also remove the reminders of how we have changed and encourage the "politically correct" to find other targets.
In Turkey, movies are routinely censored to cover cigarettes. Cigarettes are bad for health, but this censorship just brings added attention.
Older schools have entrances marked "Boys" and "Girls". Should the words be covered over in order to protect transgendered persons?
The jews in Montreal had to build their own hospital when they were unable to get medical care or degrees from the local university.
Should we now rename the "Jewish General Hospital" because it is a reminder that jews were discriminated against in the past?
The Taliban destroyed the ancient figures in Bamiyan because... Islam.
How is the destruction of historic monuments different?
Where does it end?
There will never cease to be people who are offended at something.
Earl Wertheimer at August 18, 2017 10:33 AM
I am the descendant of a great many people who fought in the War Between the States, on both sides. My great grandfather had 6 full Confederate uniforms with sidearms and sabers along with a great many other items which came to him from our relatives and family members who served in the Confederacy (all sadly lost in a fire which destroyed his home and most of his possessions). I have never displayed Confederate symbols or otherwise advertised my family history in that way, I see no reason to. I have never believed I was better than anyone due to the color of my skin, or for any reason other than my actions and theirs, which is the only basis upon which I judge myself or others.
I have been told by far too many people that my ancestors were racists and scum, fighting for the right to enslave their fellow human beings. I have been told, by people who have only a passing acquaintance with history about the evils of the south and the racism and bigotry that has pervaded it and its history. Despite the speakers having never been further south than Toledo. I didn't argue the point for the most part since they were just parroting the ideas that have been pushed through the propaganda mills of the public education establishment.
Something happened during my high school years that changed my perspective however. My mother inherited a bunch of photographs from her grandmother. most were of the family here, but many were from the old country and many were of smiling men in brown shirts. It is quite the experience to discover that ones own family tree contains men who once goose-stepped through Europe at the orders of the little Austrian with the funny mustache.
I spent several years trying to come to grips with this discovery. Trying to understand how people with my blood running through their veins could be a part of murderous insanity and evil. Mind you, most of my family had lived in America for generations before the war. The men in the pictures were distant relatives hardly known beyond a few names and those pictures, but my blood they were nonetheless.
I spent years studying the history of that war and my own family and I learned many things. I learned my family name was not my own. It had been changed, not because of Hitler, but because of the Kaiser. Like most Americans I had never known that a wave of Anti-German sentiment, often violently expressed, had swept America during World War I. My family had changed their name in fear of their neighbors. My family had ceased speaking German in the home (ironically one of my great-uncles survived a German POW camp in part because of his German language skills). My family gave up much of our heritage in fear of our fellow Americans.
After years of study, after talking to people (in my family and others) who had seen the horrors of WWII or the trenches of WWI or passed down to me the stories they had been told of 'The War of Northern Aggression' I learned something, something I had read and been told but had not internalized before then. Men rarely fight for ideologies or politics, they fight for their homes and families and loved ones.
Those men in the brown shirts had not followed Hitler because they hated Jews and Gypsy's and wanted to see them all dead. They followed because he promised them a path out of the grinding poverty and despair that had been inflicted, with malice aforethought, on Germany after WWI. The People of Imperial Germany had seen themselves surrounded by enemies intent on their subjugation. In both cases their leaders led them down the path to destruction.
The people of the south too, rightly or wrongly, saw their lives and livelihoods threatened by outsiders intent on their subjugation. The taxes imposed on southern goods exported to Europe and more taxes imposed on the finished products imported from Europe, all of them imposed by the politically stronger northern states with the obvious intent of forcing the south to sell to the north at below market prices and forcing the south to buy northern manufactured goods at above market prices. Yes, slavery too was a matter of contention with northern interests intent on stopping its spread and the south seeing this as an attempt to reduce support for southern states in the new western territories.
The final insult to the south was the offer by the Lincoln administration to allow the southern states to secede with 3 conditions;
1) Allow the passage of Union troops throughout the south.
2) Maintain Union military outposts.
3) Continue paying taxes to the Federal government, including imposts and excises.
So the south went to war.
Did most of those men in gray go to fight for the right to own slaves? No, most were not slave owners (I cannot find a single person in my family who was) and had no vested interest in that institution. The taxes imposed by the federal government on their goods were of immense interest to the people at large. The threat of Union soldiers invading their lands was of far greater concern than whether some rich land owners owned their laborers or hired them. So the Confederacy, with a fraction of the population and industrial capacity of the Union fought and very nearly secured a political victory before the northern advantages overcame southern resistance.
The deep divisions caused by the war and the subsequent mishandling of reconstruction caused severe problems in the post war era. The later Spanish-American war and Americas woeful lack of preparation meant that the southern states need to contribute to the war effort. Southern democrats used the opportunity to rehabilitate much of the Confederacy's military leadership (some of whom joined the war effort) as patriots rather than rebels. The result of which was many of the same monuments and such that are being protested today.
Today the effects of the war and the subsequent policies of the US government are coming home to roost. The rise of identity politics and grievance culture are colliding with history and those who wish to remake America are demanding that history step aside. I am all to familiar with the cost of allowing fear to dictate your actions. I lost a name and a heritage for the sake of peace with my families neighbors, what will we all lose if we allow our nation to do the same?
We can all dislike and disagree with our history but if we erase it what will we become?
Warhawke223 at August 18, 2017 10:50 AM
News item: The mayor of Seattle is demanding that a Confederate monument in the city be removed.
Shot #1: He is demanding that a statue of Vladimir Lenin in the city also be removed.
Shot #2: Both statues are on private property and are privately owned.
Shot #3: According to a commenter to the article (obviously unconfirmed), the "Confederate monument" is actually a grave headstone.
Cousin Dave at August 18, 2017 10:56 AM
Here's the link that I screwed up in the last post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/18/seattle-mayor-confederate-monument-statue-lenin-need-go/
Cousin Dave at August 18, 2017 10:57 AM
While YOU Amy are not calling for statues of Jefferson or Washington to be torn down, people are calling for this. This is the problem. Once you start trying to erase history, you find that no past "hero" was without sin. We can tear down or rename anything to do with Columbus, any past president (and not just the ones who owned slaves), and even MLK who had affairs. How can we have cities named after saints when the catholic church mistreated Indians. And on it goes. Will we only be able to name streets and buildings with letters and numbers?
Recent attacks on statues include Lincoln, Andrew Jackson in New Orleans, a peace statue in downtown Atlanta, and a holocaust memorial. Once you turn ignorant mobs loose, nothing and no one is safe.
At the same time, the Left lionizes terrorists and includes them in the Women's March (can't remember her name) or puts them on T-shirts (Che).
Let's consider Jefferson and Washington: in their time and place, it was illegal to free your slaves except upon your death (it was called manumission). You could sell them but not free them. Washington gave his slaves their freedom in his will. Jefferson could not afford to. See how history is more complicated than people think?
Kevin said "It's a stretch to equate towns deciding what belongs in the public square to Maoism or Stalinism" but the reason TOWNS are removing statues is to prevent the mobs from destroying them. Mobs have torn down many statues already and these are historic and not replaceable. It is preemptive. There were no popular votes on this.
cc at August 18, 2017 11:10 AM
News item: The mayor of Seattle is demanding that a Confederate monument in the city be removed. Shot #1: He is demanding that a statue of Vladimir Lenin in the city also be removed. Shot #2: Both statues are on private property and are privately owned.
Then neither statue should be of any concern to the mayor of Seattle, who would seem to have more pressing personal business in his life right now, such as resigning.
Kevin at August 18, 2017 11:11 AM
While YOU Amy are not calling for statues of Jefferson or Washington to be torn down, people are calling for this. This is the problem. Once you start trying to erase history, you find that no past "hero" was without sin. We can tear down or rename anything to do with Columbus, any past president (and not just the ones who owned slaves), and even MLK who had affairs. How can we have cities named after saints when the catholic church mistreated Indians. And on it goes. Will we only be able to name streets and buildings with letters and numbers?
It's interesting that the argument here seems to come back to slavery, as it does with many of the marchers, rather than secessionism.
Kevin at August 18, 2017 11:13 AM
Doesn't matter how much the prosecutors don't like it. Lacking evidence, they cannot arrest you.
Which brings me to Radwaste's comment.
If that's intended to be sarcasm, Zimmerman wasn't arrested at first, precisely for the reasons I gave. No evidence to disprove that he did not act in self-defense.
And had he kept his mouth shut, the prosecution would have left him alone.
It wasn't until Zimmerman gave a television interview that the extremely aggressive (and hugely incompetent, not to mention unethical) prosecutor claimed she heard something in that interview that raised reasonable suspicion that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
So, yes, it did work for Zimmerman. Please refrain from making assertions about issues you know nothing about.
Patrick at August 18, 2017 11:25 AM
And let's go to Europe and tear down the preserved Nazi concentration camps while we're at it. And Anne Frank's house. They're so triggering.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 18, 2017 11:31 AM
If i was black Id get my picture taken holding my doctorate degree with one of tbese "racist" works of art. But, that would require drive and effort, not just mobbing up and pulling down a statue.
Ive noticed most of those acting offended live lilly-white personal lives. Being married to not white, raising not white kids, I say leave the statues. Learning history-no matter when it was erected-is always valuable. They can spark great discussions with your kids.
Momof4 at August 18, 2017 11:39 AM
The overreach begins:
MTA will remake tiles that look like Confederate flags in station
http://nypost.com/2017/08/17/mta-will-remake-tiles-that-look-like-confederate-flags-in-station/
Snoopy at August 18, 2017 1:18 PM
"MTA will remake tiles that look like Confederate flags in station"
I get it! The tiles form a tall, narrow, blue, red, green, tan, black and pink 'X'. A confederate flag utilizes a wide, horizontal blue and white 'X' on a red background. So they're the same!
Geez, what are we going to call Macolm X now? And are algebra classes moot now that we've solved for 'X'? And all the treasure maps will have to be redone - maybe 'emoji marks the spot' will have to be the treasure-hunters' new cry.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 18, 2017 3:07 PM
"Having monuments to confederate leaders in public squares, however, is like naming a school "Hitler Junior High." "
Or like forcing non-black students to attend a public school named "Malcolm X high school".
charles at August 18, 2017 6:26 PM
Dear Advice Goddess,
The lefties are inside your OODA loop. This isn't about slavery or statues or the confederacy.
This is about validating a process, Somebody professes to be askeered, triggered, unsafe, that a thing is racist---or any other useful thing and...the validated process says the thing must come down.
Washington has been reviled for years.
Now they're trying to get the memorial to Teddy Roosevelt taken out of the American Museum of Natural History.
What's next? The USMC memorial in DC? If somebody claims it reminds them of racism and enough goons turn out...the process is valid.
The people who scoff at the thought of a slippery slope are usually the ones edging around behind you.
Richard Aubrey at August 18, 2017 9:48 PM
> Trump sells nationalism and
> populism better than any other
> politician, so his support
> will grow.
Predictions are strangely important to you, as if the Golden State Warriors were an even better team because you'd predicted their championship.
> I dont particularly care
> about the confederate
> monuments.
Me neither.
> scary thought that nothing should
> commemorate any event or person
> that has become historically
> suspect
Maybe it's from growing up on campus while not being a booklarner m'self, but a lot of this simplistic denigration seems like the efforts of undergrads to take some books off the syllabus, or like the efforts of citizens to reduce the gratitude owed to predecessors.
> people today don't understand
> how integral to the Southern
> economy slaves were.
Try to understand how hollow that sounds... As if the centrality of an atrocity to the well-being of oppressors was an exculpatory consideration. Had the South not built it's economy around slavery, and it would not have been a problem.
>> Anyone is free to...fly the
>> Confederate battle flag
>
> Wanna bet?
>
> When antifa shows up at your
> door...
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of what you say. You flew your flag and it got noticed.
Crid at August 19, 2017 3:05 AM
"Please refrain from making assertions about issues you know nothing about."
I do. You are intent on avoiding any observation that the ideals you described did nothing to provide the protection you imagined. In this case, all you have done is display a great love for yourself.
I guess somebody has to.
Radwaste at August 19, 2017 4:31 AM
Warhawke223: +1
Radwaste at August 19, 2017 4:32 AM
The fact that an atrocity was central to the economy is not exculpatory at all. It merely helps explain why it took a civil war to divest Southerners of their slaves whereas slavery was gradually eliminated in the North by the early 1800s.
Slavery was endemic to the American colonies prior to the American revolution.
Too many people view American slavery through the prism of the American Civil War and do not realize that as an institution, it changed over time. Southern slaves were primarily agricultural workers, whereas Northern slaves were primarily domestic labor. That the Northern economy was less-dependent upon the cheap labor of slavery enabled Northern states to eliminate the practice mostly peacefully and with little economic disruption by 1804.
Mass immigration would later give the industrialized North a less morally-repellent source of cheap labor. That it exploited that labor mercilessly would later give rise to labor unions and socialists.
The fact that the leaders of the American Revolution claimed that taxation without representation had reduced the American colonists to the status slaves resonated with the colonial public since slavery was widespread throughout the colonies.
Once the colonists had argued against their own enslavement, it became morally difficult to justify enslaving others. At that point, it became truly racial. Arguments were then advanced that Africans were inherently inferior in order to justify the institution.
This attitude carried over to the North, where freedmen held a status between somewhere whites and indentured servants, never a social equal to the majority white population.
Because Southerners had such a high economic investment in slavery, Southern states resisted freeing slaves wholesale. "Although some (but not all) of the Southern states allowed individual owners to manumit their slaves if they chose, no Southern state passed legislation that ended slavery completely, either immediately or gradually. This divergence in approach was significant, as it began the time during which slavery would disappear from the North and become uniquely associated with the South. This moment was arguably the fork in the road that ultimately led the country to the sectional divisions that culminated in the coming of the Civil War."
America's racial troubles do stem from a history of slavery, but that history is not uniquely Southern.
And if we want to truly understand the scope of this horror: "Slavery in the North never approached the numbers of the South. It was, numerically, a drop in the bucket compared to the South. But the South, comparatively, was itself a drop in the bucket of New World slavery. Roughly a million slaves were brought from Africa to the New World by the Spanish and Portuguese before the first handful reached Virginia. Some 500,000 slaves were brought to the United States (or the colonies it was built from) in the history of the slave trade, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 10 million Africans forced to the Americas during that period."
Conan the Grammarian at August 19, 2017 5:02 AM
The first batch of nearly 300,000 slaves (or indentured servants) brought to the colonies were white: prisoners, those in debt, captured Irish, etc. Indentured servants got their freedom after a term like 5 years, but many did not live that long.
Warhawke223 mentioned finding out that he had relatives who were german soldiers. I have 2 thoughts about that:
1) every single human has ancestors who killed someone in war or murder. History is bloody.
2) Most soldiers were drafted and had no choice about it, even in the Civil War.
The current attempt to place blame on groups for actions of their ancestors is insane. When a child is born the slate is clean. That child cannot be blamed for things that happened long ago. If my ancestors did or did not own slaves has nothing to do with me.
cc at August 19, 2017 8:22 AM
Andrew Jackson was super racist, particularly against Native Americans. That may be why they defaced his statue.
That said, I'd leave the statues. And I'd build more statues, bigger, better monuments to everyone who fought against slavery and injustice, because they are just as much a part of history.
More art, not less.
NicoleK at August 19, 2017 11:43 AM
CC, good point. Most people who fought for the North or South did so not because of ideals, but because of their birth being an accident of geography.
NicoleK at August 19, 2017 11:44 AM
That awfulness is part of history, too. It should be fully acknowledged, not erased in some reiteration of Stalin.
Conan wins the thread. Twice.
Jeff Guinn at August 19, 2017 12:02 PM
CC- your point number two at 8:22am is demonstrably false. Last I read, about 13% of Union troops were drafted. It's impossible to know how many enlisted to avoid the draft. That said, I don't think you can make a credible case that the Civil War was unpopular for the public at large.
Abersouth at August 19, 2017 2:34 PM
CC- your point number two at 8:22am is demonstrably false. Last I read, about 13% of Union troops were drafted. It's impossible to know how many enlisted to avoid the draft. That said, I don't think you can make a credible case that the Civil War was unpopular for the public at large.
Abersouth at August 19, 2017 2:34 PM
There were a couple of good ways to avoid service in the Union Army. The first available to the well off, was to pay some guy to take your place.
The second was to flee west, or back to the European hell hole you crawled out of.
Most terms of enlistment were for six months initially. So if you volunteered for the enlistment bonus and were then forcibly retained for an additional three and a half years, you still counted as a volunteer.
Beware of statistics about historical times you know nothing about. Also read something about the draft riots in New York city.
The people who were getting drafted by and large were the poor Irish immigrants who couldn't buy their way out of service.
What was doubly grating is they were sent off to fight on behalf of people who were going to become their main competition for jobs in the northern factories.
They had no dog in this fight and there was a lot of bitterness.
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=26154264
My great great uncle, born in Kentucky. Union soldier.
OTOH My great great grandfather John Milton Chastain died of cholera serving in the Confederate Army in 1863.
And very very few of these poor southern farmers were slave owners. By 63 there were just fighting to keep their families alive and not destitute.
Isab at August 19, 2017 3:22 PM
You have to give Amy credit for myopic historical vision and her desire to neatly divide the world into good guys and bad guys.
After all, that is all they have taught in college for about the last forty years.
She makes the same egregious errors parsing Islam with her 21st century California view of the world.
No, most people aren't motivated by vivicious ideologies and their racist supremicist world view. They are trapped between a rock and a hard place fighting for personal survival in a very unfriendly and unforgiving world.
They simply dont have any alternatives, never mind good choices to make.
Harry Truman dropped the atom bomb. Saved a million Japanese and probably untold millions of Americans. My father was one of them. An American Airman waiting in the Phillipines to invade Japan.
Anyone want to take bets on when the SJW's turn on Harry as a racist war criminal?
This is about destroying American culture people, and our regard and pride in our own history. It is about political power, not about justice or fairness.
Dont buy in. It will never end. There will always be a next target.
Isab at August 19, 2017 3:44 PM
The current attempt to place blame on groups for actions of their ancestors is insane. When a child is born the slate is clean. That child cannot be blamed for things that happened long ago.
That's actually the very basis for Christianity.
Kevin at August 19, 2017 3:48 PM
So, Isab, while I'm disgusted at the spiriting away of statues in the dark of night, just because most of the world has slavery doesn't mean we should necessarily keep reminders of our own slave-owning past in the public square, right? "Everybody does it" is not a good enough counter-argument, unfortunately.
mpetrie98 at August 19, 2017 4:03 PM
"That's actually the very basis for Christianity."
Maybe after Martin Luther nailed his Post-It note to the cathedral door, but certainly not in Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination.
'Original sin' and all that jive, doncha know.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 19, 2017 4:07 PM
Idolatry Part 1.
Idolatry Part 2.
Crid at August 19, 2017 4:21 PM
I dislike children, and have never set foot in a Chuck E. Cheese. The video at that link affirms my presumption.
Crid at August 19, 2017 4:26 PM
So, Isab, while I'm disgusted at the spiriting away of statues in the dark of night, just because most of the world has slavery doesn't mean we should necessarily keep reminders of our own slave-owning past in the public square, right? "Everybody does it" is not a good enough counter-argument, unfortunately.
mpetrie98 at August 19, 2017 4:03 PM
As long as it is done democratically through a vote at the ballot box at whatever level of government owns the monuments in question, I'm fine with it.
I'm not fine with black masked individuals defacing statutes, and pulling them down while the police stand there with their thumbs up their asses.
unfortunately the main goal of democratic politicians in the last few years has been to incite mob violence so that they can then blame republicans or better yet, Donald Trump.
Mostly they are just suceeding is pissing off the people who will most likely vote for him again in 2020.
I dont live in a state with any confederate monuments. I have no dog in this fight, except at the federal level.
I will believe they are serious about removing vestiges of institutional racism when Woodrow Wilson is blotted out of the history books, and all Presidential commemorations, and they change the name of Harvard and Yale.
Isab at August 19, 2017 4:29 PM
Demonstrators Part 1.
Demonstrators Part 2.
Crid at August 19, 2017 4:36 PM
Good point, Isab. I wish I knew how crid did that checkmark thing, because it applies here.
mpetrie98 at August 19, 2017 5:08 PM
Yeah. The massacre at Fort Pillow in '64 was just because the Confederates were trying to keep their families alive, not because the confederate troops hated niggers.
Right…
Sure…
Whatever.
Abersouth at August 19, 2017 5:31 PM
> that checkmark thing
Type these characters, removing the spaces—
☑ YonderCrid at August 19, 2017 5:56 PM
Thank you, Sir.
☑
mpetrie98 at August 19, 2017 6:22 PM
Or, open the character viewer on your computer and double click on the character of your choice.
✅
Jeff Guinn at August 19, 2017 10:12 PM
Everybody does it is not an excuse.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Tu quoque is Latin.
Missed the point. The point is...we're the only culture getting crap today for having had slavery in our history.
Muslim cultures? Chinese? African?
IOW, this is hypocrisy, double standards, selective outrage.
Point is, further, that the issue is delegitimizing US culture and slavery was the low-hanging fruit. Were a history of slavery not available, something else would be getting the ink because the issue isn't slavery, it's delegitimizing US culture by any means necessary.
Richard Aubrey at August 20, 2017 2:08 PM
Almost all Christian denominations have a doctrine of original sin, not just Catholics.
However, Catholicism also contains a doctrine of redemption, that is, you're not "born bad" and you can be redeemed, no matter the degree of your sin. You must atone for the sin, but you can be forgiven.
Unlike the Calvinist-inspired Protestant denominations which believe in pre-destination and teach that the state of your soul was predetermined at your birth.
That ties in with Catholicism not teaching that salvation is guaranteed by being "born again" at some point in one's life, whereas many Protestant denominations teach that a single rite can wash away once and future sins, giving the believer a pure soul.
Catholicism is concerned with the state of a soul at the instant of death. Protestantism is more concerned with the state of soul over the life of the individual.
Conan the Grammarian at August 20, 2017 7:54 PM
Richard Says:
"Point is, further, that the issue is delegitimizing US culture and slavery was the low-hanging fruit."
Since you acknowledge that this is low hanging fruit wouldn't it be prudent for you just to let it go?
This would fall into the bucket of learning to pick ones battles.
Fighting to preserve statues of traitorous individuals who fought in support of the states rights to enslave people isn't a great place you you or anyone else to plant their flag.
The way you legitimize US culture isn't to lionize the most horrific aspects of our history. Items related to the confederacy belong in museums not in front of court houses.
You are drawing your line in the sand at the wrong location.
Artemis at August 21, 2017 8:03 AM
I don't understand how anyone could object to taking certain statues out of public squares and putting them in museums instead. (Odd no one here mentioned that idea, aside from Amy and Artemis.) If that happens, I hope in time people will come to see that as common sense. Statues and plaques are decorations, after all, unlike camps and prisons, which can also serve as museums and thus do not need to be torn down, necessarily. IIRC, the Germans have plaques in many public places - commemorating the VICTIMS of the Nazis. As in: "Never Forget."
Btw, did anyone catch that NPR interview with a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans? He had the gall to say (not verbatim) that the statues should stay up for the same reason that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial should stay up; in both cases, they're about paying honor to the losers in the war and that the Vietnam War was an unpopular war too.
I hope it's one of these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sons+of+Confederate+Veterans%22+npr&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY5YzI0ejVAhXLJiYKHbbjBRUQ_AUICSgA&biw=1280&bih=881&dpr=1
lenona at August 21, 2017 8:43 AM
Oh, and here's the editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry, on the statues:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rich+lowry+statues&oq=rich+lowry+statues&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2165.7965.0.8226.18.17.0.0.0.0.109.1398.14j2.16.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.14.1232...0j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i67k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.ZU7KruT4YeY
lenona at August 21, 2017 8:44 AM
Artemis.
Not sure about drawing the line in the sand. I agree it's awkward, but there is no line that can't be slagged. Statues of Christ--inquisition, crusades, oppression of the unchurched.
The point is, the process is validated. A group complains of being offended and, since it's a legitimated process, whatever it is must go away.
The people scoffing about the idea of a slippery slope are generally trying to edge around behind you.
Public prayer is legal if voluntary and not state-sponsored. How long until a public space--a street--is considered government sponsored. Or a prayer or hymn wafting from a church into a public space (no reference to Muslims here).
There are lessons to be learned from the Civil War. Grant's generosity at Appomattox is legendary. Sherman's terms for Joe Johnston's army were so lenient that Congress reneved, although, being Congress, perhaps it was sheer reflex.
At reunions until they faded away, veterans of opposing sides met and talked and partied and were friends.
So we have a lot to learn. Nobody's defending slavery when looking at the character of the war and its soldiers. Although, I suppose, it could be a matter of having horrid cooties even to mention such a thing.
Richard Aubrey at August 21, 2017 8:26 PM
"just because most of the world has slavery doesn't mean we should necessarily keep reminders of our own slave-owning past in the public square, right?"
Well, they should be kept somewhere, lest we (or our descendants) forget. Otherwise, the next time someone complains about being repressed by the legacy of slavery, the rest of us have the intellectual right to say, "What slavery?" We can have a discussion about where the appropriate place to keep them is. But that's not what the statue-censors are on about.
"Since you acknowledge that this is low hanging fruit wouldn't it be prudent for you just to let it go?"
The problem is, by the Left's own definition, it cannot be let go. The Left assigns original sin to the deplorables, and their theology allows for no possibility of redemption. Conceding any point simply grants the Left moral permission to move the goalposts. They have constructed the theory to be non-falsifiable. The only way for the accused to not lose is to refuse to play the game.
Leftism is Gnosticism.
Cousin Dave at August 22, 2017 11:14 AM
Hey Richard, how many of those reunions had black veterans there, you know, the guys who actually fought for their own freedom? Do you think they would have made fast friends with the old confederate veterans? Is that what happened in Mississippi and Tennessee right after the war? Strange fruit that would be.
Abersouth at August 22, 2017 6:10 PM
Cousin Dave Says:
"The problem is, by the Left's own definition, it cannot be let go."
Why should they let it go?... the point that Richard was making was that this was low hanging fruit... an easy target... that the arguments for the removal of these statues are strong and the arguments to keep them are weak.
If you happen to have a gripe that is easy for you to legitimize and gain support for then you should pursue it. If you have a weak opposition argument you should let it go.
My point is that fighting against the low hanging fruit isn't a good use of whatever political capital you may have.
"Conceding any point simply grants the Left moral permission to move the goalposts."
So you refuse to concede any points at all???... even the ones that make sense or can be reasonably argued?
This strategy is intransigent and unwise. Refusal to acknowledge even the legitimate points of your political opposition only serves to make them *more* extreme, not less.
This is a great area to build common ground as presumably both the right and left have good reasons to remove these statues (that the reasons might be different is unimportant).
Pick your battles wisely. Demanding to retain statues of traitors to the republic in places of honor doesn't make anyone a patriot. In fact it is quite unamerican.
These people committed treason and you are arguing that they should be honored in front of court houses.
Patriotic Republicans should want these folks out of the public square as well.
Artemis at August 23, 2017 3:41 AM
Richard,
What I am taking away from your statement is that for you this isn't about the statues but rather your perception that this is somehow the thin end of a wedge that will ultimately prevent you from being able to pray while walking down the street.
If this is your rationale for wanting to retain statues of "confederate heroes" you are committing the fallacy of appealing to consequences.
In other words... you want to refuse to do the right and proper thing not because you have a direct argument against it, but because you fear that if you do the right and proper thing something undesirable will happen later on down the road.
Artemis at August 23, 2017 3:55 AM
Leave a comment