Confederate monuments

[GVF]

This one can be taken down next, as far as I'm concerned

General William Tecumseh Sherman Monument - Wikipedia

I can actually agree with you on that one. What's good for the goose...

If you're going to amend history, do it equilaterily

 

[GVF]

We should just get rid of public monuments to figures who should not be memorialized. That's all anybody is advocating. Statues are not history. They are endorsements of history.

"Marxist" is like the toothless red state version of throwing "racist" around, except red hats have co-opted the race card now, too.

The antithesis of your stance is that context of life when those statues were erected is different than we view them now, and you are putting into an unwinnable debate which statues are worthy to stand and which are not. So much so, that in time the only bipartisan answer is to remove all public statues.

What do you do with the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, etc. Those guys were a part of that lifestyle, and it's easy enough to find that Lincoln was not exactly pro-equal rights in his view of blacks. So, where do you start and stop. In my opinion, removing statues won't remove hate. People will be who they are with or without. What you will do by making issues out of inanimate objects is fuel hatred by removing them just as much as by leaving them. I think what's important is how you use them as they are.

 

[615vols]

Removing monuments to confederate fallen is idiotic. And it just leads to a snowball effect to everything else that hurts peoples fragile feelings. A good example is the george washington mural being removed in california because it hurts peoples feelings. Grow up liberals.

 

[MercyPercy]

It’s more a “this is the face of evil” kinda thing.
I’m not ready to satanize history we need to remember and own it. all of it. Without censorship.
I drive by a “you’re on the trail of tears” sign every day. We need to remember and never forget that either.

I for one, am all for satanizing history.

 

[0nelilreb]

Should we have monuments of Bin Laden and Hitler? You know, so we don’t “forget” history?

The US made Bin Laden , Hitler was Time magazines man of the year , no need for monuments , history won’t forget . Have you ever been to Shiloh military park in west Tennessee ?

 

[n_huffhines]

The antithesis of your stance is that context of life when those statues were erected is different than we view them now, and you are putting into an unwinnable debate which statues are worthy to stand and which are not. So much so, that in time the only bipartisan answer is to remove all public statues.

What do you do with the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, etc. Those guys were a part of that lifestyle, and it's easy enough to find that Lincoln was not exactly pro-equal rights in his view of blacks. So, where do you start and stop. In my opinion, removing statues won't remove hate. People will be who they are with or without. What you will do by making issues out of inanimate objects is fuel hatred by removing them just as much as by leaving them. I think what's important is how you use them as they are.

People living now get to decide. The dead are dead and their values don't rule the world anymore. We take the good that they built and hang onto it, and trash what we deem to be bad. If you think it is worthy of saving, fight for it. I will fight for the Washington monument and Jefferson memorial because they are worth keeping, but it's not only up to me to decide. It's up to everyone. I'm fine with that. Just keeping a statue because it's already there is not a good reason to keep it. Slippery slope arguments are not a good reason to keep statues that aren't worthy of keeping.

 

[GVF]

I’m not sure this helps your argument in any way. Clearly the southern states wanted those 30-40 years of free labor and legalized oppression, and were willing to split the country in two over it.

The issue of slavery was politicized at that time to make the war more justifiable for the north. The south was protecting states rights more so than trying to keep slavery. They were fighting federal government over reach. Some of the same reasons no doubt that spurred the Revolutionary War against the UK. Slavery just happened to be the main scapegoat politically and morally, and was in no way the primary cause of the Civil War. It should have never existed or been a part of our history, but it happened nonetheless. Slavery goes back to the dawn of man. All races have been enslaved at one time or another.

 

[05_never_again]

The issue of slavery was politicized at that time to make the war more justifiable for the north. The south was protecting states rights more so than trying to keep slavery. They were fighting federal government over reach. Some of the same reasons no doubt that spurred the Revolutionary War against the UK. Slavery just happened to be the main scapegoat politically and morally, and was in no way the primary cause of the Civil War. It should have never existed or been a part of our history, but it happened nonetheless. Slavery goes back to the dawn of man. All races have been enslaved at one time or another.

The "states' right" they wanted to preserve was slavery.

The Civil War was created by disunion, and the disunion was created by disputes over how slavery was going to be allowed to expand westward. That was the primary cause of the war. If the North American continent ended at the Mississippi River (i.e., no room to expand west, balance of power between slave and free states remains even), the war probably never occurs and slavery dies out on its own, just like it did everywhere else in the world.

Look at the various compromises in the pre-Civil War era that delayed open conflict (they were all about if/how slavery was going to be permitted to expand into new states) and look at what prominent Confederates, like Alexander Stephens, said about it (Cornerstone Speech).

 

[Weezer]

Imagine how left-leaning types would feel if Trump was threatening to invade states that didn't pay unfair tariffs.

What if he threatened to invade states that had legalized marijuana in violation of federal law?

Only a what if? I personally support the legalization of marijuana.

Another what if, what if he took federal control of sanctuary cities or cities that refused cooperation with ICE? Would that be justified? Of course not.

 

[GVF]

People living now get to decide. The dead are dead and their values don't rule the world anymore. We take the good that they built and hang onto it, and trash what we deem to be bad. If you think it is worthy of saving, fight for it. I will fight for the Washington monument and Jefferson memorial because they are worth keeping, but it's not only up to me to decide. It's up to everyone. I'm fine with that. Just keeping a statue because it's already there is not a good reason to keep it. Slippery slope arguments are not a good reason to keep statues that aren't worthy of keeping.

It's relatively easy these days to research how a lot of the northern generals viewed blacks. The fact that they fought for the north does not exonerate them of views that were similar to southerners concerning blacks. Jefferson had slaves. Lincoln was not fond of them and had derogatory remarks toward them in his writings. How do you argue to keep his Memorial, or Sherman's, and not Lee's or someone else. Viewpoints against blacks was not limited to the south. And it's still not.

 

[GVF]

The "states' right" they wanted to preserve was slavery.

The Civil War was created by disunion, and the disunion was created by disputes over how slavery was going to be allowed to expand westward. That was the primary cause of the war. If the North American continent ended at the Mississippi River (i.e., no room to expand west, balance of power between slave and free states remains even), the war probably never occurs and slavery dies out on its own, just like it did everywhere else in the world.

Look at the various compromises in the pre-Civil War era that delayed open conflict (they were all about if/how slavery was going to be permitted to expand into new states) and look at what prominent Confederates, like Alexander Stephens, said about it (Cornerstone Speech).

The states rights they wanted to preserve was the states decision to allow or disallow. Not to be told which states could and couldn't. I definitely agree that involved slavery very mush, but also many other issues that would have been surrendered to federal rights verses states rights if they lost that argument. Slavery was one of several issues in that argument over states rights. The Civil War was a major turning point toward how much control the federal system had over state systems. Refer to much oversight control the Fed has over State now. It's way too much. I do not agree with slavery. it is counter to my beliefs. It would have been best for this country had it never existed.

 

[05_never_again]

The states rights they wanted to preserve was the states decision to allow or disallow. Not to be told which states could and couldn't.

Semantics. States that had slavery thought they had a right, as a state, to decide if it would be legal or not within its borders. They thought that wasn't something that could be mandated by the federal government. Of course, they all would have voted for it to remain legal. There was no other states' right that really figured into the discussion. Slavery was the backbone of the southern economies and they thought they had a right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to decide for themselves if it would be permitted.

It's a little imprecise but still accurate to state that slavery caused the war. Lost Cause sympathizers are wrong when they say that slavery wasn't a primary cause, or wasn't a cause at all. However, they are correct when they say that abolishing slavery was not a war aim. The Union's aim was to preserve itself and keep the southern states inside of it; what happened with slavery as a result of it was irrelevant. There's some mythologizing of Lincoln that isn't accurate either.

 

[Septic]

The US made Bin Laden , Hitler was Time magazines man of the year , no need for monuments , history won’t forget . Have you ever been to Shiloh military park in west Tennessee ?

Thanks Obama.

 

[GVF]

Semantics. States that had slavery thought they had a right, as a state, to decide if it would be legal or not within its borders. They thought that wasn't something that could be mandated by the federal government. Of course, they all would have voted for it to remain legal.

It's a little imprecise but still accurate to state that slavery caused the war. Lost Cause sympathizers are wrong when they say that slavery wasn't a primary cause, or wasn't a cause at all. However, they are correct when they say that abolishing slavery was not a war aim. The Union's aim was to preserve itself and keep the southern states inside of it; what happened with slavery as a result of it was irrelevant. There's some mythologizing of Lincoln that isn't accurate either.

Right, but my point is, both sides wanted a say into how slavery expanded to the west. Neither should have had that say. It should have solely up to the people of that new state. And hopefully they would have voted no. And I think the tide was turning to where most would have voted no. The industry or agriculture that evolved in those states would have had no benefit of slave labor at all. And the oncoming industrialization was going to wipe it out as well. That's not a good argument, but it was on its way out. Morally, it had to go and not soon enough. I think the federal Government had a responsibility to work with states toward resolving slavery peacefully. I disagree that war should have happened over arguing "states rights" one way or the other over expanding states. We went to war over states rights because we disagreed who could tell a new state what to do. It's counter to what states rights actually encompasses.

There's also a good bit about Lincoln that is true. You can read it in his own words. Whether or not it's sensationalized is moot. there was enough of his own opinion in writing to enable that to happen.

Honestly, after a slave made it to the north, how much better were they treated. Even today, racism is as strong or stronger in those states as it is down here.

 

[n_huffhines]

It's relatively easy these days to research how a lot of the northern generals viewed blacks. The fact that they fought for the north does not exonerate them of views that were similar to southerners concerning blacks. Jefferson had slaves. Lincoln was not fond of them and had derogatory remarks toward them in his writings. How do you argue to keep his Memorial, or Sherman's, and not Lee's or someone else. Viewpoints against blacks was not limited to the south. And it's still not.

I want to keep Lee's. I want to keep Jefferson's. I want to keep Grant's. I want to get rid of Lincoln. I want to get rid of Sherman. I treat it on a case by case basis. To me it's not really about viewpoint on blacks. Everybody at the time had a viewpoint that is behind our time. I actually judge them based on what their values were at the time. They were ignorant about race, so I judge them differently than I do people today. Lee and Jefferson actually had fairly progressive views on blacks, so I don't see what angle makes sense for them to not be memorialized. Terrorizing blacks is not ever OK, so KKK peeps have got to go. Scorched earth is not ever OK, so Sherman's got to go. Trampling the constitution and being responsible for 600k American deaths is not ever OK, so Lincoln's got to go.

The idea that we either don't have the conversation or we get rid of all of them is a false dichotomy. Why are people so afraid to have these conversations?

 

[n_huffhines]

What if he threatened to invade states that had legalized marijuana in violation of federal law?

Only a what if? I personally support the legalization of marijuana.

Another what if, what if he took federal control of sanctuary cities or cities that refused cooperation with ICE? Would that be justified? Of course not.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any reason that I would deem justifiable to invade a state.

 

[05_never_again]

Right, but my point is, both sides wanted a say into how slavery expanded to the west. Neither should have had that say. It should have solely up to the people of that new state.

Really? Even though the practice in question was whether or not it should be legal to own another human being as property? That's like saying a state should be allowed to have a referendum on if people over the age of 75 should have the right to freedom of religion. Rights like that aren't (or shouldn't be) up for a vote.

Regardless, the situation as it existed in the days before the war was untenable. Leaving it up to the citizens of that state as you mentioned seems like a good, fair idea on the surface (popular sovereignty). That's exactly what the Kansas-Nebraska Act did. That led to Bleeding Kansas, where both pro and anti-slavery folks flooded into Kansas Territory trying to establish a majority and killed each other in essentially was a gang war.

 

[GVF]

I want to keep Lee's. I want to keep Jefferson's. I want to keep Grant's. I want to get rid of Lincoln. I want to get rid of Sherman. I treat it on a case by case basis. To me it's not really about viewpoint on blacks. Everybody at the time had a viewpoint that is behind our time. I actually judge them based on what their values were at the time. They were ignorant about race, so I judge them differently than I do people today. Lee and Jefferson actually had fairly progressive views on blacks, so I don't see what angle makes sense for them to not be memorialized. Terrorizing blacks is not ever OK, so KKK peeps have got to go. Scorched earth is not ever OK, so Sherman's got to go. Trampling the constitution and being responsible for 600k American deaths is not ever OK, so Lincoln's got to go.

The idea that we either don't have the conversation or we get rid of all of them is a false dichotomy. Why are people so afraid to have these conversations?

Politically, we are fairly different, but I do agree very much with your rationale here on how you view who should go and who should stay.

The black hole of the war is that those people that invaded the south for their beliefs at that time, held those same views against the southerners they were fighting. We were beneath them, just as southerners viewed blacks at a lower level. There was a lot of personal pride being fought for as well. And a lot of northerners hold those same views toward a southerner now, even though they are as anti-black as any region. The Midwest and Northwest is the new old south when it comes to racism. The problem that still exist in the south are because people tell us we have those problems. I've never lived it or experienced it one direction or the other. and I hail from a town south of Atlanta, and went to a high school that was 60/40 black. And my work shifts in the mills reporting to me were predominately black and 7th grade educated whites. We did not have racial issues in the early 80's when I was in high school like you see reported now. In my church, we went to church together. Several I grew up with still think of my dad as one of the great people they knew. And if there was a town back then ripe for racial battles, mine would have been it. most people of my generation probably had similar experiences. If we fought, we fought. May have been white on white, black on black, or white on black. But, it wasn't because of that. If we were friends, we were friends. It was just that way.

I know other places may have had different experiences, and I'm not naïve to that. And from what I hear, my hometown not quite the same as it was then. I think we have digressed because the public started getting fed that we had worse issues than truly existed. But, my early years, I just didn't see it.

 

[vol445]

Should we have monuments of Bin Laden and Hitler? You know, so we don’t “forget” history?

I would say yes. With seal team standing over him

 

[GVF]

Really? Even though the practice in question was whether or not it should be legal to own another human being as property? That's like saying a state should be allowed to have a referendum on if people over the age of 75 should have the right to freedom of religion. Rights like that aren't (or shouldn't be) up for a vote.

Regardless, the situation as it existed in the days before the war was untenable. Leaving it up to the citizens of that state as you mentioned seems like a good, fair idea on the surface (popular sovereignty). That's exactly what the Kansas-Nebraska Act did. That led to Bleeding Kansas, where both pro and anti-slavery folks flooded into Kansas Territory trying to establish a majority and killed each other in essentially was a gang war.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way advocating that slavery has ever been just, or right for any reason.

I'm just saying, as a product of the times and what they were arguing, they were wrong either way. The south was arguing States rights. the Union was arguing maintaining. Both were arguing on how slavery should progress with expansion. But, arguing for states rights while at the same time trying to have a say in which direction a new state went was a counter to their own arguments. My point is that it should have been only up to that new state to vote, and in the meantime the Fed should have been focusing more on a peaceful abolition of slavery overall. it may have worked, it may not. May have still ended up in the war to put an end to it anyway. It's a shame that a war would have had to be fought for that reason in the first place.

 

[05_never_again]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way advocating that slavery has ever been just, or right for any reason.

I'm just saying, as a product of the times and what they were arguing, they were wrong either way. The south was arguing States rights. the Union was arguing maintaining. Both were arguing on how slavery should progress with expansion. But, arguing for states rights while at the same time trying to have a say in which direction a new state went was a counter to their own arguments. My point is that it should have been only up to that new state to vote, and in the meantime the Fed should have been focusing more on a peaceful abolition of slavery overall. it may have worked, it may not. May have still ended up in the war to put an end to it anyway. It's a shame that a war would have had to be fought for that reason in the first place.

By 1854, that's precisely what the federal government was getting around to. Popular sovereignty. Every new state was going to be allowed to vote if slavery would be permitted, which was what southerners actually wanted. They were going to try out this idea starting in Kansas, and people came into there and started killing each other. It ended up culminating in what was essentially a gang war, as advocates of both sides came in to establish residency and secure a majority to win the vote. It didn't work.

Because of Manifest Destiny, war was inevitable. That's the reason the United States had to have a war to settle the slavery question and nobody else did.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I for one, am all for satanizing history.

Yup do that all the time.
People shouldn’t make fun of dyslexia.
I need to come up with a word I can use for people that sounds awful.

You’re A lexiphobe!!




Nope that’s not it.

I’ll work on and get back to you

 

[Orangeslice13]

@Septic

I’m still pondering your question. And while I still feel like my official reaction is correct context becomes important. The whole museum vs public square and message being sent.......

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I would say yes. With seal team standing over him

Wizzing in his eye socket

 

[Matt2496]

If the left was ONLY wanting to take down confederate statues, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it and I can understand why.

However, I'm inclined to lean towards the idea that confederate statues should stand because the left is using that as a justification for pulling down statutes of Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers.

You give them a little and they go to the extreme. Similar to what has happened regarding abortion over the past year.