Removal of historic monuments

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Lew Silverman

"Remember the saying "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"?"

Unless I've forgotten my junior-high social studies lessons, the Spanish-American War started because of the desire of the Cuban (and Filipino) people to gain their independence from an overbearing and cruel Spanish government. (After all, we fought a war for OUR independence a little over a hundred years earlier). That, and the not so small matter of the sabotage and sinking of a US battleship in Havana harbor. I don't need a statue to "Remember the Maine", do I? (And if I did, there's one at Arlington Cemetery, along with memorials to Americans from all of our conflicts)

But that's not what we're really talking about here, is it? It's not really about what's happening with the statues after all -

"What's happening here is a group of people trying to jump back into the past to open old wounds to deflect the fact that they feel entitled to be given special advantages without putting in the effort to gain them on a level basis. Never have people given the
OPPORTUNITY to get ahead in life than there has in this country in the past 30 years or so. Some chose to do so and some opted to take the handouts."

So the recent concern about the statuary and memorials is just a smokescreen for some sinister plot? The "fact" that the majority of these statues were dedicated well after the Civil War ended, coincidentally at or around the same time that "Jim Crow" laws were being passed to disenfranchise a part of our citizenry, isn't a valid reason for us to discuss their relocation? No one is saying that we should forget or ignore our shared history, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone wants to forget that it took us almost 100 years after that war and TWO Acts of Congress to guarantee Equal Rights "under law" to ALL Americans. I know I don't want to forget. And I don't need a statue to help me remember.

First, they want the statues DESTROYED (they did a good job on a few), not relocated.
Second, The vocal majority don't want a conversation about relocation.
Third, all the support they get comes from liberals who vote and support the party that
were mostly responsible for the Jim Crow era. The Civil RightsAct was fought tooth and nails by southern dixiecrats (but we all know that, old news, let's move on) and the party saw votes in giving blacks (and other minorities) entitlements. They do it to this day. I have no problem giving people a hand up, not a hand out for no return in their ability to better themselves. When scam artists like Al sharpton, Jessie Jackson and all the other leeches are given a platform at their conventions and gatherings it's no wonder they drove moderate democrats away.
I could type all night giving examples where modern day liberalism has done very little to uplift the plight of minorities in this country.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Buick6]

It's almost impossible to view history by what we know today. You have to view it in the context of what the laws and beliefs were then. The War Between the States wasn't only fought about slavery. But a lot of people today still think that slavery was the only issue. The US Supreme Court case of Dred Scott upheld slavery several years before the war. And years later, the US Supreme Court case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson upheld separate but equal laws, which were what most Jim Crow laws were about (separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) But the statues and monuments have nothing to do with any of that. They were erected to honor leaders of men who answered the call of duty to defend their states against an invading army from the north. They were erected as a way for southerners to regain some pride after a devastating defeat. Those statues aren't about racism or white supremacy, but the way the liberal mind works they make that leap. I'd bet those same people believe Sherman's March to the Sea was honorable and humane.

[HandOverFist]

I would have to agree with the above statement. The majority of people nowadays really have no clue about the Civil War other than what Hollywood portrays.

[Lew Silverman]

Originally Posted by Buick6

It's almost impossible to view history by what we know today. You have to view it in the context of what the laws and beliefs were then. The War Between the States wasn't only fought about slavery. But a lot of people today still think that slavery was the only issue. The US Supreme Court case of Dred Scott upheld slavery several years before the war. And years later, the US Supreme Court case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson upheld separate but equal laws, which were what most Jim Crow laws were about (separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) But the statues and monuments have nothing to do with any of that. They were erected to honor leaders of men who answered the call of duty to defend their states against an invading army from the north. They were erected as a way for southerners to regain some pride after a devastating defeat. Those statues aren't about racism or white supremacy, but the way the liberal mind works they make that leap. I'd bet those same people believe Sherman's March to the Sea was honorable and humane.

Your first two sentences make a great deal of sense, which is why it's hard for some people to understand how the past has helped to shape our present.

Slavery not "THE" cause of the war? Not if you believe most contemporaneous writers of the period, including Alexander Stephens, when he authored the "Cornerstone Speech", which most certainly stated that slavery, and it's spreading west, was a very "BIG" part of the call for secession. Chattel slavery was a very large part of the economy down south, after all. And I suppose that President Lincoln's rational to pursue hostilities with the states who seceded after they attacked Fort Sumter was more of an effort to keep the Union in one piece, then to end slavery, at least initially. The "Emancipation Proclamation" came later, and only affected those chattel slaves in the areas not under Union control.

But if, as you say, the statuary and other monuments were erected to help southerners regain some pride after a devastating defeat, why did it take, in some cases, 40 years to emplace them? And why the somewhat coincidental passage of the "Jim Crow" laws to subjugate the part of the southern population that earned the rights of citizenship at the conclusion of that conflict. "Separate", but hardly "equal", and it took 58 years for the SCOTUS to finally get it right.

I suppose it would be an interesting research project to find out what was said, back then, about that period right after the war. Had President Lincoln not been assassinated and had he been able to bring about the ideals he so eloquently stated in his 2nd Inaugural Address -

"With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."

Maybe we wouldn't be fixated on statues right now.

[Buick6]

I appreciate your concerns. We agree more than disagree. Reread my statement and you will see I did not say that slavery was not the cause. I am well acquainted with Alexander Stephens writings (my paternal grandmother's family). But it was certainly not the only cause. You are correct to say that Lincoln went to war to preserve the union. As I pointed out, federal law was settled on slavery and he would have been in violation of federal law. You can question the correctness of the Supreme Court decision, but that was the precedent at the time. We also agree that the concept of separate but equal was just flat wrong. But men practicing any of those things at the time were, in fact, law abiding citizens. Jim Crow type laws existed in the north too.

You ask why it took so long to erect the statues and monuments? How many people have them erected in their own lifetime? Various towns and organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy erected many of those monuments. At the turn of the century, the children and grandchildren of confederate veterans recognized the need to remember the leaders that written history was leaving out or giving little credit for their leadership. It was merely a southern pride thing. No one complained back then. A lot of those monuments were also dedicated to the thousands of confederate soldiers who died. And believe me, at that time, nearly everyone had a relative who fought in that war. Most of those former confederate generals and leaders were held in high regard after the war by their northern counterparts. Now we're talking about tearing their monuments down?

As for the reconstruction period after the war, I could write a book on my opinions about that corrupt period. I'll just say that living under military occupation caused a whole lot of hatred and mistrust for the US government that lasted for generations. The tax man finished off many families (including some of mine) in the south that barely survived the war.

[David Lee]

lets say we grant you for the sake of argument that some of these statues were erected to honor these people who fought for the south. My family was from Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana. All these states were Union, not southern. why are there statues there.

now lets look at some of the generals that fought for the south during the war. Many were in the army before the war started. They swore an oath that still goes on today, that they will protect this country from both foreign and domestic threats. By definition, these men betrayed that oath, and should have been court marshaled, convicted and shot for sedition. Why would anyone want to honor a traitor?

[Buick6]

You would have to research the individual erected monument or statue to know why it is there. I do a lot of history and genealogy research and am often surprised how easy some things are to find information on.

Your'e overlooking an important fact. In those days, you held the state you were from in higher regard than the US Government. Your state came first. General Lee struggled with this himself. These officers resigned their US commissions (and therefore their oaths) and joined the confederate army. You may view them as a traitor. But they were heroes in their own day.

You don't have to honor anyone. Just don't tell others who to honor a hundred years after those before us found worthy. You cannot erase history.

You are still trying to view people in history by what we know or feel generations later.

[David Lee]

Originally Posted by Buick6

You would have to research the individual erected monument or statue to know why it is there. I do a lot of history and genealogy research and am often surprised how easy some things are to find information on.

Your'e overlooking an important fact. In those days, you held the state you were from in higher regard than the US Government. Your state came first. General Lee struggled with this himself. These officers resigned their US commissions (and therefore their oaths) and joined the confederate army. You may view them as a traitor. But they were heroes in their own day.

You don't have to honor anyone. Just don't tell others who to honor a hundred years after those before us found worthy. You cannot erase history.

You are still trying to view people in history by what we know or feel generations later.

its not my opinion they are traitors it is matter of fact and military law. They broke the oath of office.

This accusation of us trying to erase history, to be blunt is bull****. There are not statues through out Germany and Austria of the **** leaders and they know their history quite well. There are no statues in France of the people who were in the Vichy government and they know their history.