What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

[phrodeau]

Odd thing about rewriting history, as the Civil War was not about slavery until 1863. The Confederacy was so named because the southern states wanted less federal control, and more state control of government. It wasn't until Lincoln found himself losing the war that he needed the blacks of the time to gain the advantage over the CSA. If you go back and actually read Lincoln's first Inaugural address, he quite flatly states he has no interest in ending slavery, that the south has no reason to fear federal intervention in the laws of the states, and feels he has no power to do so.

But that's not widely known, since... you know... public schools don't teach that stuff.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Sounds like those historically-informative statues are falling down on the job.

 

[phrodeau]

The most racist President ever was FDR... look up his connection to Josephus Daniels (FDR's mentor), his Secretary of the Navy, and the man who caused the Race Riot of 1898 in Wilmington, NC, in which the Black Republican government of North Carolina was lynched, Democrats took over at gunpoint, instituted the Jim Crow laws and then empowered the KKK, the only successful government coup in the history of the United States, and held power for the next 125 years. He used the position as editor of Raleigh News and Observer (then known as the Red Rooster) to provoke the coup, for which the N&O in 2006 published a public apology.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/n...apers-apologized-for-role-in-1898-race-riots/

Time to pull down statues of FDR?

Throw away all of your dimes.

 

[Rightguide]

I saw this question posed by another member in a different thread and its a good one. The short answer is you cant stamp out hate. Nothing you do can stop a person from hating except kill them. People will hate regardless if there are any statues, busts, plaques or memorials to the confederacy or the soldiers who fought for the south.

The thing is by attacking the Symbols, the ideas one group sees as their heritage you actually feed their hate. It doesn't matter what you think or feel because of the emotional investment they have, right or wrong. Tearing down Symbols will only fuel their rage and deepen their hate and desire to resist. If there was no counter protest in charlotte, nobody would have got hurt. The counter protestors (who had no permit to be there) gave the haters exactly what they wanted, a confrontation and innocent people paid the price.

The smart thing to do is to reclaim the message of the objects. Move the offending statues off government building sites like courthouses and administration buildings to a park or cemetery. Rename the schools and buildings. Statues of civil rights leaders could be placed opposing them as if in confrontation or conversation with an uplifting message of hope, peace or diversity. While doing this we must also be mindful it's part of our history and you cant erase history and we shouldn't, we should learn from it.

Many of the statues ,monuments have ample room on their base for an additional message. One such example in the case of the Robert E Lee statue could be this quote attributed to him a few years after the wars end.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained." Robert E. Lee

http://www.azquotes.com/author/8660-Robert_E_Lee

I could prattle on but I think my point has been made. I'll add one last thing. I think its a shameful thing to attack the dead and any memorial in a cemetery should be off limits, period. Some may not know this but Confederate soldiers are by law Veterans. Public law 85-425, specifically section 410 http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf

I may be misreading it but I think not. Any resident legal eagles care to chirp
in, Col. Hogan, Busybody, Eyer? This was about as thoughtful a post as I care to make for the rest of the year. Now back to Sarcasm, Tomfoolery and Porn.

The decision should be up to the local communities and the democratic process if they are to stay or torn down, not up to a friggin mob of Communists and Anarchists.

 

[richard_daily]

The decision should be up to the local communities and the democratic process if they are to stay or torn down, not up to a friggin mob of Communists and Anarchists.

Uhh, that's exactly what happened before the klan and wackaloons decided to show up and protest the removal.

 

[Rightguide]

Uhh, that's exactly what happened before the klan and wackaloons decided to show up and protest the removal.

How does that negate what I just said? Was the protest legal? Did it have a permit? Who started the violence? Who landed the first blow? Who showed up to disrupt a lawful legally permitted protest?

 

[Rightguide]

The important thing to remember is there weren't any slaveholding Republicans. The Republican Party was the anti-slavery party. The statues being removed are all Democrats.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You certainly are stolid in your reverence to your flat Earth belief. 'll give you that.

I hate to jump into someone else's fight.....oh, hell; no I don't:

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.


The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

And on, and on, and on.....

Georgia declaration of secession

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Arkansas Secession

Sorry "Coach." That ostrich photo fits you far more than it does SR71. Most of the actual secession resolutions passed by the individual confederate legislatures (even those cited above) did not specifically cite slavery. They merely focused on the legality of their avowed right to secede. But for those states which saw fit to expound upon their motivations, slavery was unmistakably at the forefront.

Now you could make the argument that states who DID NOT issue independent "declarations of cause" were not so similarly motivated as their Confederates, but I think it would be pretty clear that you would be merely attempting to see if you could force your ass into the same hole where your head already resides.

 

[coachdb18]

I hate to jump into someone else's fight.....oh, hell; no I don't:



Sorry "Coach." That ostrich photo fits you far more than it does SR71. Most of the actual secession resolutions passed by the individual confederate legislatures (even those cited above) did not specifically cite slavery. They merely focused on the legality of their avowed right to secede. But for those states which saw fit to expound upon their motivations, slavery was unmistakably at the forefront.

Now you could make the argument that states who DID NOT issue independent "declarations of cause" were not so similarly motivated as their Confederates, but I think it would be pretty clear that you would be merely attempting to see if you could force your ass into the same hole where your head already resides.

It seems strange to me that, of the 13 seceding states, only THREE even mentioned slavery in their Ordinances of Secession. And if Lincoln had made the promise that he would not and could not counter state laws, and that he had no intention of ending slavery (see my prior posting of that excerpt from his first inaugural address), then what WAS the fight about? Certainly slavery was the biggest issue the Confederacy held as example of the excesses of Federal power, but we STILL have the issue of states rights to this day, and it is the same now as it was then, long after the single issue of slavery has been gone for over a century.

And just one more point, seeing as this is to my knowledge our first interaction, do you think it's possible for you to interact without trite kindergarten taunts (I'm referencing the 'force your ass...' comment specifically)? Thanks in advance!

 

[RobDownSouth]

It seems strange to me that, of the 13 seceding states, only THREE even mentioned slavery in their Ordinances of Secession. And if Lincoln had made the promise that he would not and could not counter state laws, and that he had no intention of ending slavery (see my prior posting of that excerpt from his first inaugural address), then what WAS the fight about? Certainly slavery was the biggest issue the Confederacy held as example of the excesses of Federal power, but we STILL have the issue of states rights to this day, and it is the same now as it was then, long after the single issue of slavery has been gone for over a century.

And just one more point, seeing as this is to my knowledge our first interaction, do you think it's possible for you to interact without trite kindergarten taunts (I'm referencing the 'force your ass...' comment specifically)? Thanks in advance!

Whatever the rationale for the civil war was fought over, the south lost.
No other country erects monuments to traitors and losers.
Deal with it, chumlee.

 

[sr71plt]

Except that "it wasn't slavery" is a hallmark of the white supremacists.

 

[jaF0]

A potential compromise:

Order the removal of any Confederate statue or monument erected more than 50 years after Appomattox.

That allows for genuine memorials, but shoots down the ones erected for other reasons during the Civil Rights era.

 

[sr71plt]

A potential compromise:

Order the removal of any Confederate statue or monument erected more than 50 years after Appomattox.

That allows for genuine memorials, but shoots down the ones erected for other reasons during the Civil Rights era.

Fine, but that won't comply with existing Virginia law--and there are other states with this law, although I haven't checked which ones. The laws have to be changed, and the other states are probably like Virginia, having legislatures controlled by Republicans who haven't shown a set of balls between all of them in this whole Trump business.

In Virginia's case, the Republicans have gerrymandered the whole state so well that, although the state has turned blue (the governor, and the two U.S. senators are Democrats), the U.S. representatives are mostly Republican and the legislature is overwhelming in Republican control. This is what gerrymandering does.

 

[jaF0]

My proposal would be a Federal Law or Court order. The states would have no say.

 

[sr71plt]

My proposal would be a Federal Law or Court order. The states would have no say.

Don't think the federal level can establish jurisdiction over this--and the federal level is controlled by the Republicans too, who have started to talk about a solution, but that all it is so far--talk.

 

[coachdb18]

Many, if not most statues the world over are erected to honor military figures. In all of these, there was a difference of opinion, else no war of conflict would have taken place. Therefore, I think it safe to say that there is probably a case to be made for and against (nearly) every statue ever erected. Anyone disagree with that?

 

[jaF0]

^^ As I said somewhere earlier, I was OK with the southern statues and monuments, largely because many of the descendants are still alive and living in the same areas. The Civil War was a big family issue with many families losing members on both sides.

That is until the Hate Right started this recent crap. Now, they have to go.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It seems strange to me that, of the 13 seceding states, only THREE even mentioned slavery in their Ordinances of Secession. And if Lincoln had made the promise that he would not and could not counter state laws, and that he had no intention of ending slavery (see my prior posting of that excerpt from his first inaugural address), then what WAS the fight about? Certainly slavery was the biggest issue the Confederacy held as example of the excesses of Federal power, but we STILL have the issue of states rights to this day, and it is the same now as it was then, long after the single issue of slavery has been gone for over a century.

And just one more point, seeing as this is to my knowledge our first interaction, do you think it's possible for you to interact without trite kindergarten taunts (I'm referencing the 'force your ass...' comment specifically)? Thanks in advance!

If you can (finally) admit that "slavery was the biggest issue the Confederacy held as an example of the excesses of Federal power," then why would you repeatedly cite Lincoln's protestations of having no designs on terminating that institution when such assurances were obviously falling on deaf ears? The war was fought over the reason(s) the Confederacy SAID it was fought, and the supreme reason was slavery -- for a variety of subset reasons -- economic, racial and Constitutional. That's why I cited FIVE specific instances from FIVE separate states that were EASILY documented. Do you really think if I had the energy to document the legislative floor debates of the other eight Confederate states, I would find no mention of that predominate issue?

And that's partly why I resort to "kindergarten taunts." When someone is so childish as to keep repeating a single, obviously semi-spurious political quote that doesn't even scratch the surface of the larger contextual debate, they've already abandoned any inclination they might have had to discuss the issue as an adult.

 

[coachdb18]

If you can (finally) admit that "slavery was the biggest issue the Confederacy held as an example of the excesses of Federal power," then why would you repeatedly cite Lincoln's protestations of having no designs on terminating that institution when such assurances were obviously falling on deaf ears? The war was fought over the reason(s) the Confederacy SAID it was fought, and the supreme reason was slavery -- for a variety of subset reasons -- economic, racial and Constitutional. That's why I cited FIVE specific instances from FIVE separate states that were EASILY documented. Do you really think if I had the energy to document the legislative floor debates of the other eight Confederate states, I would find no mention of that predominate issue?

And that's partly why I resort to "kindergarten taunts." When someone is so childish as to keep repeating a single, obviously semi-spurious political quote that doesn't even scratch the surface of the larger contextual debate, they've already abandoned any inclination they might have had to discuss the issue as an adult.

The simple fact is, slavery was dying anyway. It was simply too expensive to maintain. The industrial replacements for human labor are now, and were then, becoming far cheaper replacements. We see the same thing now with the $15/hr minimum wage demands, and the vending machine replacements stepping into those burger stands. If it was ONLY about slavery, all the Feds had to do was wait. The Confederate states had a very long list of abuses by the Northern Federal-positive states. Much as the Revolutionary war was begun because there was a skirmish that cost some lives at the 'Boston massacre', there were many grievances, only the tip of the iceberg being laid out in the Declaration of Independence. To deny that the BIGGEST obstacle was slavery would be dishonest, but to say the war was fought over the singular issue of slavery, and to label anyone pointing this basic dishonesty out as 'racist' is dishonest to an even greater degree.

Lastly, it seems you insist on being the last patronizing word. Have you never considered trying to get people to like you, or to simply let the weight of your arguments sell what you're selling?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

A potential compromise:

Order the removal of any Confederate statue or monument erected more than 50 years after Appomattox.

That allows for genuine memorials, but shoots down the ones erected for other reasons during the Civil Rights era.

My proposal would be a Federal Law or Court order. The states would have no say.

^^ As I said somewhere earlier, I was OK with the southern statues and monuments, largely because many of the descendants are still alive and living in the same areas. The Civil War was a big family issue with many families losing members on both sides.

That is until the Hate Right started this recent crap. Now, they have to go.

The Hate Right only "started" this recent crap when political snowflakes took it upon themselves to remove the statue, which had apparently been sitting there and basically ignored for decades.

It's not as if racists are running around the South dancing like banshees around Confederate statues and monuments whipping themselves into a frenzy. If you would simply ignore their sorry asses and their stupid rebel flags, bumper stickers and ugly t-shirts they would simply sit around their backyard bar-b-ques getting drunk with each other.

Which is the greater victory? The number of Confederate statues and monuments scattered around the South or the number of registered black voters in the past 50 years, not to mention elected black office holders in the deep South?

Be smart and stop trying to stamp out that which can't be stomped. Your enemies tried the same thing riding around on horseback dressed in bed linens, and even they couldn't do it.

And they had a far greater advantage then than they do now. These idiots are not worth your time.

 

[Shagly]

History.

It is known to repeat itself.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Many, if not most statues the world over are erected to honor military figures. In all of these, there was a difference of opinion, else no war of conflict would have taken place. Therefore, I think it safe to say that there is probably a case to be made for and against (nearly) every statue ever erected. Anyone disagree with that?

Other than America, how many countries erect fawning monuments to the losing side?

 

[AnalCreampieGiver]

I see no good in it. We need to set an example for the rest of the world and show the people who still have hate in their hearts that they stand alone and will not be tolerated in the United States. Two things make my blood boil more than anything.. Racism and Poverty. One thing I do love is making racists angry, sad or afraid.

 

[coachdb18]

Remember when Reagan went to the German cemetery at Bitburg, and there were memorials and <gasp> SS grave markers <gasp>? There was controversy in that visit... in America. And there were American graves in that same cemetery, which Reagan honored with a wreath laying, right there in Germany. Guess what, the Germans didn't win that war either, but they were fallen soldiers who still get respect, nobody digging them up or desecrating their tombstones, and the Germans aren't digging up the 'enemy' American dead!

 

[MGurkus]

How does that negate what I just said? Was the protest legal? Did it have a permit? Who started the violence? Who landed the first blow? Who showed up to disrupt a lawful legally permitted protest?

You said nothing about the permit etc... you said how the removal process should go and you were informed that it did go exactly that way. That is why the right wingers showed up to protest.
Be a man, vettey.

 

[MGurkus]

Remember when Reagan went to the German cemetery at Bitburg, and there were memorials and <gasp> SS grave markers <gasp>? There was controversy in that visit... in America. And there were American graves in that same cemetery, which Reagan honored with a wreath laying, right there in Germany. Guess what, the Germans didn't win that war either, but they were fallen soldiers who still get respect, nobody digging them up or desecrating their tombstones, and the Germans aren't digging up the 'enemy' American dead!

Fuck all your civil war heroes. Seriously. The town voted to remove the statues and that is that. Quit being a special kind of snowflake. If you don't like the democratic process go to NK or Russia. The citizens are tired of being reminded of their legacy of hate and racism.

*suckitupbuttercup