Do you personally agree with taking down confederate monuments? (1 Viewer)

[MarvinTScamper]

I have no idea, shouldn't have thrown that number out. Lotsa dead Americans, though.  Also, they lost.

closer to a million deaths, all in including civilians and slaves

3-4 million soldiers, IIRC

 

[Statorama]

there are consequences to losing civil wars

Hey, my family was on the winning side, so it's not the hugest deal to me.

Of course my high school years were spent in Louisiana learning about the war of northern aggression because the north didn't believe in State's Rights.

So I can see both sides.  But long story short, the war's over Johnny.

 

[squistion]

Is Dixie a banned song per snowflakes?

No, but if it was played at an NFL game before kickoff, I doubt few players would be standing out of respect during the rendition.

 

[knowledge dropper]

You can take away the statues but you will never be able to take away Skynyrd. 

 

[GROOT]

You know A simaliar thing happened when i was in Hungary. Communist statues were removed and relegated to Memento park. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baMcDT7lPZ4

 

[Sweet J]

Hey, my family was on the winning side, so it's not the hugest deal to me.

Funny, because my first thought was that Tobais is from the south, and therefore possibly his family was on the loosing side.

Then I remember that his family killed Jesus, so probably not. 

 

[Jayrod]

Funny, because my first thought was that Tobais is from the south, and therefore possibly his family was on the loosing side.

Then I remember that his family killed Jesus, so probably not. 

Per the Bible, we all killed Jesus.  

HTH, YMMV and all that.

 

[Jayrod]

Evidently there's a confederate monument here in St. Louis. Never knew it existed as did just about most of the population of the city. Now there is this big uproar about it. People aren't just now coming up with the idea to be offended by the confederacy. They are coming up with new ways to direct their ill ease about it. I really don't feel the need to spend my tax dollars on something I didn't know existed a few months ago. I would rather that money go to the roads or a teachers salary or something.

You already were spending your tax dollars on something you didn't know existed.  Also, there are likely a lot of people who did know and it matters to some of them.  To remove it is a final cost and will no longer require upkeep costs.  Plus it will help with race relations in a very racially torn city and improve the St. Louis community as a whole.

If you are actually concerned with the city's finances, you should definitely be behind the removal of the monument.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Per the Bible, we all killed Jesus.  

HTH, YMMV and all that.

The sisters of Notre Dame were also quite clear that any number of things I might do or had done made the Baby Jesus cry.

 

[squistion]

Per the Bible, we all killed Jesus.  

HTH, YMMV and all that.

Speak for yourself, I never even met the man.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

While it was a very big part of it, making the Civil War solely about slavery is a lie, and hurts the position.   States rights were and are a major consideration for why the national electorate does what it does.

States rights = the right to have slavery.  FIN

 

[crusty crab]

I’m here in Richmond VA. I kind of like one solution that is being talked about here. There’s a movement to contextualize the existing statues with plackards, signs, digital kiosks, and other things that teach about the specifics of the history of the statues themselves, and civil war history in general. I’m sure the people involved will easily agree to the finer points of contextualization. /sarcasm -Maybe they could have dueling contextualizations at every site. A lot of flaggers and monument defenders here say that the statues are memorials to Virginia’s war dead, which I think is complete BS. They are statues of specific people as I see it.

I’m not opposed to removing/relocating all of them, but I don’t think that will happen. I would fully support the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue since he was more of a political figure than war hero. Many here, including our current mayor, have said that that statue in particular is offensive. Maybe relocating that to a museum, and erecting something more of a tribute to our African American history here would be a good start at compromise. Another part of the future vision here is focused on outnumbering these existing statues with more statues and memorials that better represent the entirety of the city’s history and current population. I guess the point is to maintain an acknowledgment of the past and expand upon what we have memorialized about it, with an eye on the present and future. 

 

[Jayrod]

Speak for yourself, I never even met the man.

The line was, "Per the Bible". 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Speak for yourself, I never even met the man.

You live in Los Angels, and never met a guy named Jesus?  I find that hard to believe.

 

[squistion]

The line was, "Per the Bible". 

The line was also we all killed Jesus

Unlike you, I don't endorse that position.

 

[Franknbeans]

at the very least, they should stop cleaning the bird crap off of them

 

[Joe Summer]

MTS:

While it was a very big part of it, making the Civil War solely about slavery is a lie, and hurts the position. States rights were and are a major consideration for why the national electorate does what it does.

The southern states didn't give a damn about states rights when a northern state refused to turn over fugitive slaves. Oh, and they also objected to giving any state the right to let blacks vote.

 

[Toe Cutter]

The line was also we all killed Jesus

Unlike you, I don't endorse that position.

Who cares

 

[Sand]

Speak for yourself, I never even met the man.

And you never will.

 

[squistion]

And you never will.

And neither will you.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I figure folks down there can get this right without my help, and indeed that my help might be so patronizing or offensive to them that they might delay just to demonstrate that they can do so. Folks can get stubborn, right or wrong. Being pushed seems to elicit a reaction of digging in one's heels.   

 

[Sweet J]

The line was also we all killed Jesus

Unlike you, I don't endorse that position.

I'll go one further.  Per Nietzsche, we killed J-dog's dad, and the rest of the happy bunch up there.  And yes, he's blaming you, too.  ESPECIALLY you. 

 

[squistion]

I'll go one further.  Per Nietzsche, we killed J-dog's dad, and the rest of the happy bunch up there.  And yes, he's blaming you, too.  ESPECIALLY you. 

How rude! I won't even accept responsibility for Schrödinger's cat.

 

[3C's]

I’m here in Richmond VA. I kind of like one solution that is being talked about here. There’s a movement to contextualize the existing statues with plackards, signs, digital kiosks, and other things that teach about the specifics of the history of the statues themselves, and civil war history in general. I’m sure the people involved will easily agree to the finer points of contextualization. /sarcasm -Maybe they could have dueling contextualizations at every site. A lot of flaggers and monument defenders here say that the statues are memorials to Virginia’s war dead, which I think is complete BS. They are statues of specific people as I see it.

I’m not opposed to removing/relocating all of them, but I don’t think that will happen. I would fully support the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue since he was more of a political figure than war hero. Many here, including our current mayor, have said that that statue in particular is offensive. Maybe relocating that to a museum, and erecting something more of a tribute to our African American history here would be a good start at compromise. Another part of the future vision here is focused on outnumbering these existing statues with more statues and memorials that better represent the entirety of the city’s history and current population. I guess the point is to maintain an acknowledgment of the past and expand upon what we have memorialized about it, with an eye on the present and future. 

Monument Ave wouldn't be the same w/o the monuments.

 

[-OZ-]

You stupid hicks.  Don't you know your regional pride offends the PC crowd in New York and California and it must be wiped out from the pages of history to make them feel better?

They can start with Wall street and the White House. 

Eventually it will happen. People have too much time on their hands. With that free time they come up with things to be offended by. If enough people want to take down a statue. So be it. Once the statues are gone, they will move on to something else that they will get worked up about. 

http://time.com/3938696/u-s-army-installations-named-after-confederate-officers/

It has nothing to do with being "offended" by anything.  The people that want to take down the statues aren't really "offended" by them the way that word is usually defined.  They're embarrassed by them, as well they should be. It's literally the worst part of their history. There's so many great things to celebrate about the south, and in this case about New Orleans in particular. Why would you want to be known as the place that's proud of the time it tried to turn against the United States so it could keep black people as slaves only to get whupped by a bunch of northerners?  Hell, build a Paul Prudhomme statue. He enriched the lives of many Americans, plus it would provide more shade.

True.  Which frankly can be a good reminder to not be #######s. 

there are consequences to losing civil wars

CPT Rogers agrees.

 

[MarvinTScamper]

MTS:

The southern states didn't give a damn about states rights when a northern state refused to turn over fugitive slaves. Oh, and they also objected to giving any state the right to let blacks vote.

I believe you on the left call it a slippery slope (I miss that guy).  The south sucked and states rights weren't only about slavery but you knew that. 

 

[crusty crab]

Monument Ave wouldn't be the same w/o the monuments.

It certainly would be a lot different. Costs for any solutions are at issue too. That's one reason why I like what the mayor and others have to say about it, pretty much along the lines of what I posted earlier. I think here, of all places, a little compromise and good will might be the best way to go. More actual educational stuff at the monuments themselves too. I believe some use the phrase 'outdoor museums'. It'll be interesting to see if and how it progresses here. 

 

[knowledge dropper]

You're really serious about keeping the "Most Ironic Username" title, aren't you?

When did Captain Comedy get off his suspension?

 

[General Malaise]

A Mississippi statehouse representative said those responsible for removing Confederate monuments in Louisiana should be lynched.

“The destruction of these monuments,” wrote Rep. Karl Oliver on Facebook Saturday night, “erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, ‘leadership’ of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening in our State.”

 

[-OZ-]

Nice comparison of John Brown to Osama Bin Laden.  John Brown was an abolitionist, not a terrorist.  We still celebrate out choice to be a "free state" in Lawrence - both my kids will attend Free State High school.  

Solid brewery too.

To be fair, our jayhawkers were rather violent. Unlawful violence with a political agenda.... guess I'm okay with @timschochet calling them terrorists.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Good Lord. Talk about tone deaf

 

[Politician Spock]

Per the Bible, we all killed Jesus.  

HTH, YMMV and all that.

If this is true, then vilifying Judas is uncalled for.

 

[Smack Tripper]

MTS:

The southern states didn't give a damn about states rights when a northern state refused to turn over fugitive slaves. Oh, and they also objected to giving any state the right to let blacks vote.

sick to death of this canard 

 

[Jayrod]

If this is true, then vilifying Judas is uncalled for.

Judas is vilified for his betrayal.

 

[Politician Spock]

Judas is vilified for his betrayal.

A betrayal without which no one would have salvation. 

 

[matttyl]

I understand it's more complicated than that, but that doesn't really change my argument.

The bottom line is that, motivated in significant part by their desire to keep black people as slaves (you can debate how significant, but as the Cornerstone Address tells us it was definitely at the top of the list), they fought a war to secede from the greatest nation on earth that resulted in the deaths of millions. Oh, and they got their butts handed to them by a bunch of Yankees in the end. If you build a statue to honor that and let that statue stand in the 21st century so be it.  But you can't then turn around and be outraged when the rest of the country draws entirely logical conclusions based on what you decide to celebrate.

Yes, it is more complicated than that.  Much more.  I've tried to study the situation as much as I can to understand it better.  That time in our history is certainly the time that molded our country the most into what we are today - and most of all the war and the outcomes from it. 

Lee (one of the statues in question) choose to lead the Confederate Army only after being offered the head of the Union Army by Lincoln.  As to why he made this decision, he said that he would never draw his sword against his native state, Virginia.  Virginia, not the US, is what he believed to be his country first and foremost (as was the belief of many at the time).  That's why before the war the term "these United States are" though now we use the term "the United States is".  Lee was actually against succession, calling it anarchy.  He was also, amazingly enough, against the Confederacy and hoped that his state wouldn't join it if it did succeed - though it did both, and he followed. 

For what it's worth, Lee likely did more than any man to get the South back into the Union as smoothly as possible after the war.  He supported Johnson's plan for reconstruction, and for the most part was pro civil rights for all (for the time period).  I add that last part because you have to look at the man in his time period, and not of that today.  As someone up thread had posted, the existence of slavery had been there for thousands of years.  For hundreds of years slave ships were going from the African continent to the western hemisphere - something that just last summer Brazil displayed to the entire world in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics they hosted (I wondered at the time if the US would have done anything at all similar).  The fact that Lee (or others at time time) were even personally torn on the issue was a huge step in the right direction.  Lee, like most people of the time, was extremely religious - so much so that he'd be considered a radial today.  He viewed slavery as the will of God, and that it would only end by Him. 

Also - Civil War death toll is around 620k. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes, it is more complicated than that.  Much more.  I've tried to study the situation as much as I can to understand it better.  That time in our history is certainly the time that molded our country the most into what we are today - and most of all the war and the outcomes from it. 

Lee (one of the statues in question) choose to lead the Confederate Army only after being offered the head of the Union Army by Lincoln.  As to why he made this decision, he said that he would never draw his sword against his native state, Virginia.  Virginia, not the US, is what he believed to be his country first and foremost (as was the belief of many at the time).  That's why before the war the term "these United States are" though now we use the term "the United States is".  Lee was actually against succession, calling it anarchy.  He was also, amazingly enough, against the Confederacy and hoped that his state wouldn't join it if it did succeed - though it did both, and he followed. 

For what it's worth, Lee likely did more than any man to get the South back into the Union as smoothly as possible after the war.  He supported Johnson's plan for reconstruction, and for the most part was pro civil rights for all (for the time period).  I add that last part because you have to look at the man in his time period, and not of that today.  As someone up thread had posted, the existence of slavery had been there for thousands of years.  For hundreds of years slave ships were going from the African continent to the western hemisphere - something that just last summer Brazil displayed to the entire world in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics they hosted (I wondered at the time if the US would have done anything at all similar).  The fact that Lee (or others at time time) were even personally torn on the issue was a huge step in the right direction.  Lee, like most people of the time, was extremely religious - so much so that he'd be considered a radial today.  He viewed slavery as the will of God, and that it would only end by Him. 

Also - Civil War death toll is around 620k. 

I appreciate the history argument, and you've made an excellent argument for him not being nearly as awful a person as Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens.  However IMO there's an enormous gulf between "not even close to the worst prominent member of the Confederacy" and "worth memorializing in a statue and permanently associating with our city/county/ state."

If the state of Virginia or whoever chooses to pay tribute to Robert E. Lee hundreds of times more often and more prominently than it pays tribute to Dred Scott or Maggie Walker it's free to do so, but its residents can't really complain about the perception of them that comes with that decision.  And I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to residents speaking out about not wanting people to perceive their state that way.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Also - Civil War death toll is around 620k. 

And would have been many times less had Lee done the right thing. That's not hindsight - Lee knew what he was getting into and knew the likely outcome.

 

[msommer]

The line was also we all killed Jesus

Unlike you, I don't endorse that position.

Nobody killed Jesus.

Except his authors

 

[-OZ-]

I appreciate the history argument, and you've made an excellent argument for him not being nearly as awful a person as Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens.  However IMO there's an enormous gulf between "not even close to the worst prominent member of the Confederacy" and "worth memorializing in a statue and permanently associating with our city/county/ state."

If the state of Virginia or whoever chooses to pay tribute to Robert E. Lee hundreds of times more often and more prominently than it pays tribute to Dred Scott or Maggie Walker it's free to do so, but its residents can't really complain about the perception of them that comes with that decision.  And I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to residents speaking out about not wanting people to perceive their state that way.

Valid points, but it's not all that surprising for Virginia to not have a statue for Mr Scott considering the significant events all happened in other states.  He does have a memorial in St. Louis.  

 

[matttyl]

I appreciate the history argument, and you've made an excellent argument for him not being nearly as awful a person as Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens.  However IMO there's an enormous gulf between "not even close to the worst prominent member of the Confederacy" and "worth memorializing in a statue and permanently associating with our city/county/ state."

If the state of Virginia or whoever chooses to pay tribute to Robert E. Lee hundreds of times more often and more prominently than it pays tribute to Dred Scott or Maggie Walker it's free to do so, but its residents can't really complain about the perception of them that comes with that decision.  And I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to residents speaking out about not wanting people to perceive their state that way.

But it's up to the individual to perceive what they are seeing, correct?  When I went to the University of Virginia a few years back to attend a family member's graduation - I perceived the grounds of that school there to be an excellent center of education - perhaps one of the greatest here in the US (debatable, but not for here).  Others may see it as a cite created by a rapist, racist slave-owner, and at least partially built by slaves he (and others in the area) owned.  Perception, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. 

The same is true of these statues.  When I see a statue of Lee, I likely perceive it differently than you do - or differently than most others do.  And that's fine.  When I see his statue in Richmond, on Monument Ave, sitting atop his horse Traveller, I see an often misunderstood man who was one of the most brilliant military minds this nation has ever made (he graduated 2nd in his class at West Point, having not received a single demerit his entire 4 years - and was later Superintendent there).

I don't mind at all people having objection to the monuments, or flags, or the "slave auction block" that still sits in front of a neighboring county's courthouse.  They likely have a different perception of these items than I do, which is quite fine and I'd even encourage.  My point is that objecting to (at least some of) these statues by saying "cause they were racist losers" is a bit off, in my mind. 

 

[matttyl]

And would have been many times less had Lee done the right thing. That's not hindsight - Lee knew what he was getting into and knew the likely outcome.

Are you saying that if Lee either didn't join the war at all, or choose to lead the Union Army instead - that we wouldn't have had a war?

Yes, Lee knew what he was getting himself into, and also knew the odds were extremely long.  Just another point that adds to his legacy for many. 

 

[-OZ-]

Are you saying that if Lee either didn't join the war at all, or choose to lead the Union Army instead - that we wouldn't have had a war?

Yes, Lee knew what he was getting himself into, and also knew the odds were extremely long.  Just another point that adds to his legacy for many. 

That would be a silly argument.  A vastly better one is that the war would have been over much more quickly - with fewer lives lost. 

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Are you saying that if Lee either didn't join the war at all, or choose to lead the Union Army instead - that we wouldn't have had a war?

Yes, Lee knew what he was getting himself into, and also knew the odds were extremely long.  Just another point that adds to his legacy for many. 

I'm saying that I think, if Lee had led the Union Army, many less people would have been killed/maimed/driven insane because the Confederacy would have folded by 1862 - Lee would have whipped their butts into submission right quick. Which means that the next 150 years would have played out a whole lot differently and the countless murders during Reconstruction and Jim Crow (which was driven by a bunch of Yankee #######s) wouldn't have happened the way they did. 

 

[MarvinTScamper]

And would have been many times less had Lee done the right thing. That's not hindsight - Lee knew what he was getting into and knew the likely outcome.

also, that number is soldiers only.   Between 100-200k more non-soldiers killed.

 

[msommer]

Are you saying that if Lee either didn't join the war at all, or choose to lead the Union Army instead - that we wouldn't have had a war?

Yes, Lee knew what he was getting himself into, and also knew the odds were extremely long.  Just another point that adds to his legacy for many. 

His legacy as in losing the war, clearly.

His legacy as in fighting for a treasonous outfit, also.

Brilliant military mind that chose to be a traitorous loser, fighting for a despicable cause, is that what you are saying?

More statues of him are required, clearly. Maybe instead of on his horse it could be one showing him overseeing the flogging of slaves. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

But it's up to the individual to perceive what they are seeing, correct?  When I went to the University of Virginia a few years back to attend a family member's graduation - I perceived the grounds of that school there to be an excellent center of education - perhaps one of the greatest here in the US (debatable, but not for here).  Others may see it as a cite created by a rapist, racist slave-owner, and at least partially built by slaves he (and others in the area) owned.  Perception, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. 

The same is true of these statues.  When I see a statue of Lee, I likely perceive it differently than you do - or differently than most others do.  And that's fine.  When I see his statue in Richmond, on Monument Ave, sitting atop his horse Traveller, I see an often misunderstood man who was one of the most brilliant military minds this nation has ever made (he graduated 2nd in his class at West Point, having not received a single demerit his entire 4 years - and was later Superintendent there).

I don't mind at all people having objection to the monuments, or flags, or the "slave auction block" that still sits in front of a neighboring county's courthouse.  They likely have a different perception of these items than I do, which is quite fine and I'd even encourage.  My point is that objecting to (at least some of) these statues by saying "cause they were racist losers" is a bit off, in my mind. 

Yes, that's true, it's up to the individual how to perceive it. But you can be aware of how other people will inevitably perceive things as well. Also there is a huge difference IMO between monuments or tributes to men who owned slaves but are being honored for other things they did, and men who are being honored largely because they fought to secede from the union and protect slavery.  That's just my opinion but it seems like a pretty big distinction and one that lots of others make too.

Anyway, it's nice that you think see Lee differently, but like I said that doesn't mean you get to tell other people how to feel either, and lots of other people see a statue honoring a guy for his fight to secede and protect slavery ... and thus a city/state that made the decision that this effort was worth honoring.  It's not my place to tell other parts of the country who they can honor or not honor, but the people who live there also don't get to tell other people how to feel about those decisions, either.

Also, there's nothing invalid or inaccurate about pointing out that anything that honors the confederacy honors traitorous losers who were fighting primarily to protect slavery. That is the truth. They seceded from the union, and then they lost the war for which they are being honored. It may be an incomplete description in some cases, but it's still an accurate one.

 

[Thunderlips]

I'm saying that I think, if Lee had led the Union Army, many less people would have been killed/maimed/driven insane because the Confederacy would have folded by 1862 - Lee would have whipped their butts into submission right quick. Which means that the next 150 years would have played out a whole lot differently and the countless murders during Reconstruction and Jim Crow (which was driven by a bunch of Yankee #######s) wouldn't have happened the way they did. 

Meh.

IIRC, at the end of the war....one of the things that Lee was against was the army fading into the woodwork and engaging in continual guerrila tactics.  It's possible that if Lee wasn't there to discourage this...the war could have gone of for longer than it did.

 

[matttyl]

That would be a silly argument.  A vastly better one is that the war would have been over much more quickly - with fewer lives lost. 

I'm not so sure of "much more quickly" - maybe a year or two at most.  But it still would have been a lengthy war with hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of lives lost.  For all we know had Lee not joined, Jefferson Davis (or Braxton Bragg) would have fought even longer than Lee had - and may have throw every single soldier they had command of (roughly 1.3m or so) into the fold before surrendering.

 

[-OZ-]

I'm not so sure of "much more quickly" - maybe a year or two at most.  But it still would have been a lengthy war with hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of lives lost.  For all we know had Lee not joined, Jefferson Davis (or Braxton Bragg) would have fought even longer than Lee had - and may have throw every single soldier they had command of (roughly 1.3m or so) into the fold before surrendering.

That's fair, though if bragg were leading, the south would have been done before reveille. 

Still, a shorter war generally means less deaths.