Confederate statues

[Winstonm]

Let's get this straight once and for all: Robert E. Lee and all other confederates were traitors, by the very definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them....".

 

Their purpose in warring was to ensure a southern way of life, i.e., to continue an economic system based on slave-labor, treating slaves - fellow human beings - as property. There is nothing heroic or admirable about what they did. They should be remembered, all right, but only as black marks in history books.

[Cyberyeti]

https://www.facebook.com/SickOfTheSlant/photos/a.163029403722750.42222.134525006573190/2045656468793358/?type=3&theater

[mike777]

It is interesting to note while some of these monuments went up decades and decades after the civil war, many others were built in the North right after the end of the war to honor all soldiers, rebels and union solders. Many may not be aware there is a section in Arlington Cemetery, a Union cemetery to honor the rebel soldiers who were buried there.

 

Confederate Memorial (Arlington National Cemetery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Memorial_(Arlington_National_Cemetery)

[steve2005]

You also shouldn't forget many of the Presidents and politicians prior to 1863 were slave owners or in favour of slavery including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

It is also ironic that what was then the Democratic party was the political party most against abolition of slavery.

Things do change which is good.

By the way I am not an American.

[mike777]

It should be emphasized that bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior.

 

If we are discussing history from many decades ago let us not forget the monuments to slave owners in the UK, Rome, Greece and Egypt to name a few. People may forget that Native Americans took slaves.

 

With all of that said if your local community wishes to remove their local monument for whatever reasons I have no issue with that.

 

If Winston wishes to remember Lee as ONLY A Black Mark in History I would hope he might reconsider. I would hope Winston would take a look at Lee's life before and after the war.

 

Side note. You may wish to take a look at the life of the Union General Sherman who after the civil war took control of the war against the Plain Indians. He gave them a choice, assimilate or be exterminated. This was under the leadership of Grant and others.

[Al_U_Card]

The "winners" do get to write the history. Lee was first and foremost a "Virginian" who felt more loyalty to his home state than a bunch of federal bureaucrats. (If Ken Burn's Civil War can be believed.) Slavery was part of their life and they felt it belonged there, as repugnant as the practice is. Mike is right in that all past societies relied on slave-labor to enhance their economies. Part of war and plunder. Nowadays, economic slavery is more the practice by the winners.

[spotlight7]

Let's get this straight once and for all: Robert E. Lee and all other confederates were traitors, by the very definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them....".

 

Their purpose in warring was to ensure a southern way of life, i.e., to continue an economic system based on slave-labor, treating slaves - fellow human beings - as property. There is nothing heroic or admirable about what they did. They should be remembered, all right, but only as black marks in history books.

 

 

Washington and Jefferson and all signers of the Declanration of Independence were traitors that rebelled against their lawful king.

 

 

Slave holders are bad so the great black kingdoms of Africa with their large slave holdings were very bad.

 

 

For most of history nations held slaves up till very recently. Greece and Rome guilty.

 

 

Egypt guilty. Persian Empire quilty

[andrei]

to continue an economic system based on slave-labor, treating slaves - fellow human beings - as property. There is nothing heroic or admirable about what they did. They should be remembered, all right, but only as black marks in history books.

 

We should tear down whatever is left of the Coliseum right now ...

Let's ask ISIS to do it, they already did such a good job at Palmyra.

[mike777]

It is always a difficult but worthwhile discussion to discuss history even through the lens of modern morality.

 

In 20 years or 50 years will we look back at the consumption of meat, all meat, the slaughter of animals for meat as some horrible moral weakness?

In 50 years will there be a discussion of treating robots as property to use as we wish including for slave work or sex or bridge or some ethical issue to debate?

[Winstonm]

Washington and Jefferson and all signers of the Declanration of Independence were traitors that rebelled against their lawful king.

 

 

Slave holders are bad so the great black kingdoms of Africa with their large slave holdings were very bad.

 

 

For most of history nations held slaves up till very recently. Greece and Rome guilty.

 

 

Egypt guilty. Persian Empire quilty

 

If you will notice, in my statement I made two arguments against memorializing Lee: 1) the legal argument (he committed treason) and 2) the moral argument (his treason was in support of continued slavery). Even if you disagree with the second, how can anyone argue against the first? Or should Wisconsin memorialize Aldrich Ames for his 31 years of service to the C.I.A.?

[Winstonm]

It is always a difficult but worthwhile discussion to discuss history even through the lens of modern morality.

 

In 20 years or 50 years will we look back at the consumption of meat, all meat, the slaughter of animals for meat as some horrible moral weakness?

In 50 years will there be a discussion of treating robots as property to use as we wish including for slave work or sex or bridge or some ethical issue to debate?

 

You might weigh in on my response above - the legal argument against memorializing a treasonous traitor.

[spotlight7]

The American Constitution was written and signed by traitors to their English king.

 

 

Lee was pardoned after the Civil War so he is not legally a traitor as you claim.

 

 

 

Slavery has existed for thousands of years and in many nations/empires.

 

 

The great black empires in Africa held large numbers of slaves.

 

 

Greece and Rome held huge numbers of slaves.

[hrothgar]

Washington and Jefferson are not remembered because they were slaveholders. We honor them in spite of this fact and, at least here in the North, when we recall these individuals we point out the hypocrisy and the tragedy that the constitution that Jefferson helped to draft didn't not treat blacks as humans.

 

The only reason that Lee is remembered is that he was a traitor who went to war against the United States to defend slavery.

Had he never done so nor be so successful in his cause he would be no more venerated than any other random major or colonel from the 19th century.

 

Let us not forget that, by and large, the statutes that we are fighting over today were erected in the 1920s in an attempt to celebrate the end of reconstruction and remind blacks that they had once again been disenfranchised.

[steve2005]

You might weigh in on my response above - the legal argument against memorializing a treasonous traitor.

I doubt there is a law in US against memorializing a traitor. If you find one I stand corrected.

 

 

 

[mike777]

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=list+of+confederate+monuments+in+the+north&qpvt=list+of+confederate+monuments+in+the+north&qpvt=list+of+confederate+monuments+in+the+north&qpvt=list+of+confederate+monuments+in+the+north&FORM=IGRE

 

I believe this is a partial list of confederate statues in the north, to say the least there are many of them.

 

As I said in my first post.

 

This was certainly a hot topic after the war, should we just say the hell with south, the rebels, the traitors or should we offer Grace, undeserved forgiveness and reach out.

 

Again I add the Arlington Cemetery a sacred Union cemetery where the rebels, traitors if you prefer were buried with honor at the time.

 

Many of these monuments to the rebels were erected in the north .... the purpose to honor the fallen including the traitors in the hope of reconciliation...many more were erected esp in the south as testament to discrimination and racism and hate in the south decades later.

 

 

 

If your local community would prefer to take them down for whatever reason, no issue here, if you prefer to maintain them, you decide.

[nige1]

1984 illustrates how victors write and rewrite history.

 

Were you to remove monuments to terrorists and slave-owners, few old statues would survive.

 

A lot of old art is religious and has merit even it's fashionable to blame religion for the world's ills.

 

Also, ethics are always a bit arbitrary and evolve over time, so we must be wary of judging historical figures by current concepts of right and wrong.

 

For example, you can imagine a future society condemning us for our

• Cruel enslavement of animals to eat and for pets. Subjecting them to foul eugenics programs. Brain-washing them. Perverting their natural growth and instincts.
• Disgraceful mistreatment of robots and AI programs. or
• Squandering precious resources on chimera like the millennium bug and global warming
• Bigoted prevention of church/state recognition of human-marriage to a sheep or to an Apache helicopter.

[Winstonm]

I doubt there is a law in US against memorializing a traitor. If you find one I stand corrected.

 

Do you fail to understand that the legality I mentioned was the act of treason? If you think treasonous behavior should be memorialized, you have that right. Perhaps we should add Robert Hannsen and Aldrich Ames to your list, as well.

[The_Badger]

Charlie Daniels: Confederate Statue Removal Is Like 'What Isis Is Doing'

 

"There were pieces of history that they didn't like, they were taking them down," says the country and Southern rock veteran.

 

As Daniels sees it, the answer isn't in removing Civil War statues of Lee, Jackson and the like, but simply turning away.

 

"If you don't like it, don't look at it," he says. "I walk past movie posters I don't like … there's all kinds of symbolism in this country that I don't like, but I'm not going to go tear them down. I just don't look at them … These statues aren't preaching or shouting out some kind of crazy epithets or something. They're just sitting there. Just turn around and don't look at them."

 

Daniels remains one of country music's most politically vocal figures. "Wonder if any of the radicals fomenting chaos would consider marching to save the lives of the millions of unborn that are murdered each year," he tweeted today, along with his regular tweets about the terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. "Benghazi ain't going away!" he wrote.

 

My view: Rewriting history by burying it or destroying it does us no favours at all. Even if I agree that what the Confederate States stood for was morally wrong.

[hrothgar]

 

"If you don't like it, don't look at it," he says. "I walk past movie posters I don't like … there's all kinds of symbolism in this country that I don't like, but I'm not going to go tear them down. I just don't look at them … These statues aren't preaching or shouting out some kind of crazy epithets or something. They're just sitting there. Just turn around and don't look at them."

 

 

The statues are on public lands and represent deliberate and continual speech by the state.

This is very different than private speech by a movie theater.

[The_Badger]

The statues are on public lands and represent deliberate and continual speech by the state.

This is very different than private speech by a movie theater.

 

Yes, I agree that Daniels remarks are clichéd at best comparing Confederate Statues to movie posters. But many of these statues were erected in the late 1800s/early 1900s and are part of the history of the USA.

 

As a traditional left-wing Labour (Democrat) voter myself, I would definitely veto any attempt to erect any divisive symbolism such as Confederate Statues in this day and age.

 

However, given that the USA has participated in numerous wars around the world, some very divisive, killing millions of ordinary people, shouldn't the Statue of Liberty be dismantled too?

[hrothgar]

Yes, I agree that Daniels remarks are clichéd at best comparing Confederate Statues to movie posters. But many of these statues were erected in the late 1800s/early 1900s and are part of the history of the USA.

 

As a traditional left-wing Labour (Democrat) voter myself, I would definitely veto any attempt to erect any divisive symbolism such as Confederate Statues in this day and age.

 

However, given that the USA has participated in numerous wars around the world, some very divisive, killing millions of ordinary people, shouldn't the Statue of Liberty be dismantled too?

 

Where to begin...

 

1. The Statue of Liberty is an example and a celebration of the America's best instincts. In what way would tearing the Statue of Liberty down be any kind of apology for the wars that we have fought.

 

2. Perfidious Albion doesn't get to lecture the United States about fighting bloody wars. Your own history is checkered at best. America's bloodiest foreign wars were fought to protect your damn hides. (And before you go and bring up Vietnam or Iraq, I know all about the Suez crisis. The reason that Britain stopped flexing its muscles is that the only foreign powers that you can threaten any more are local bullies like Argentina)

 

3. If you really want to critique the US start with the fact that we committed genocide against the native inhabitants of the North America as well as slave trade. (Oh wait, most of this was started when we were still a British colony so that might be a bit hypocritical)

 

Going back to the original topic of the statues:

 

If these statues were ONLY a historical landmark, I might agree with you. But they're not. They are living history and ongoing speech.

They say to the black inhabitants of the South "Reconstruction failed. You are still second rate citizens. You will never be us."

 

And in today's political climate, where the Civil Rights Act is being undone, where the Republican party is championing voter suppression and racial gerrymandering, the continued display of these statues on public land is intolerable.

 

These statues were erected as an act of political speech during the worst days of Jim Crow and the fight over the Civil Rights Act.

Their removal can and should serve as political speech once again, this time showing that the South is rejecting those old arguments.

[Vampyr]

The American Constitution was written and signed by traitors to their English king.

 

 

Lee was pardoned after the Civil War so he is not legally a traitor as you claim.

 

 

 

Slavery has existed for thousands of years and in many nations/empires.

 

 

The great black empires in Africa held large numbers of slaves.

 

 

Greece and Rome held huge numbers of slaves.

 

What is the point of your comment? Is it that if slavery is so popular it must be good?

[Zelandakh]

What is the point of your comment? Is it that if slavery is so popular it must be good?

I thought the argument was quite simple. Winston advanced 2 arguments, one legal, one moral.

 

Spotlight gave 2 answers to the legal argument - that it would lead to the Founding Fathers also being excluded from having statues, since they themselves were traitors (not to mention terrorists by a modern definition) and that Lee is not legally a traitor due to being pardoned.

 

And the answer to the moral argument is essentially that the practise at the time was widespread and should therefore not be judged exclusively by modern standards.

 

I personally admire Lee as one of the great generals of his age. I do not admire the Confederacy more generally nor do I - support the views that it stood for. The question of a statue is in part on what values you attach to it. There was a similar debate in the UK some years back regarding Margaret Thatcher - is a statue to her representing her position, her economic reforms or a reminder to working-class people and Scots of how their "masters" can hurt them?

 

Similarly for Lee - you can see a statue as honouring his military prowess, his grace in defeat or by his association with the Confederacy as a whole. For me, which aspects someone focuses on says something about that person. On a purely military level, if (for example) Patton "deserves" a statue then most assuredly so does Lee.

 

What it should not be though is a rallying point for racism - I am confident that Lee himself would be horrified by the idea if he were alive today. If America is in such a place that it is impossible to separate one aspect of his legacy from the other then it would be better for there to be no statues - but, once again, that says more about the state of America than the man himself and that is something I find somewhat disheartening over half a century on from the death of MLK.

[hrothgar]

I thought the argument was quite simple. Winston advanced 2 arguments, one legal, one moral.

 

Spotlight gave 2 answers to the legal argument - that it would lead to the Founding Fathers also being excluded from having statues, since they themselves were traitors (not to mention terrorists by a modern definition) and that Lee is not legally a traitor due to being pardoned.

 

And the answer to the moral argument is essentially that the practise at the time was widespread and should therefore not be judged exclusively by modern standards.

 

 

But the statues weren't put up to honor Lee or Jackson or whomever.

That's the excuse

 

The reasons that the statues were erect during the 1920s was a celebration of the end of reconstruction.

They are political message directed at blacks saying "We won. You are, once again, disenfranchised."

 

Also, the founder are celebrated for variety of accomplishments not because they were traitors.

Lee - Lost Cause mythology not withstanding - would be forgotten today had he not killed hundreds of thousands of his own men defending the right of whites to enslave blacks.

[spotlight7]

Lee was offered command of the Union Army before war broke out.

 

He was a widely respected military officer from his service in the War with Mexico.

 

 

 

Only a small percentage of the men in Picketts charge at Gettysburg owned slaves.

 

 

If slavery were the reason, there would have not been any advance that day.

 

 

 

Statues put up in the 1920s were to tell women that they still could not vote.