Removing Civil War Monuments

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

What happens for things that straddle the fence? Lee's Arlington house comes to mind, sitting in the middle of Arlington national cemetery.

Opinions will vary, but in this case I'd argue it's the location being celebrated as an important part of history and is fine to remain.

The house, after all, was not erected for the specific purpose of celebrating a traitor or intimidating an entire swath of the populace due solely to their skin color in conjunction with enactment and enforecement of Jim Crow laws. While some will sincerely disagree with me, that's where I stand.

The house draws attention more to the location than it does to the subjugation and those who fought for it to persist. 

[Ten oz]

Very important distinction between actual pieces of history and those things erected to honor and celebrate. 

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Lee swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, as a graduate of West Point. He committed treason when he went to war against the US.

see the above link: W.E.B. DuBois on Robert E. Lee 

Who is this W.E.B. and why should I listen to him?/sarcasm

I read your link and it is a fair point but I would remind you Washington also took an oath to a king.

But none of that really matters to me Washington was a tratior to a country that regularly practised genocide to aquire new land and Lee was a tratior to a country that did the same thing.

What supercedes all (for me) is they both owned slaves. 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Who is this W.E.B. and why should I listen to him?/sarcasm

I read your link and it is a fair point but I would remind you Washington also took an oath to a king.

But none of that really matters to me Washington was a tratior to a country that regularly practised genocide to aquire new land and Lee was a tratior to a country that did the same thing.

Yes, Washing was a traitor to Britain. But he was on the winning side. Had we not gained our independence, I doubt very much that statues of him would have been tolerated.

[Outrider]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, Washing was a traitor to Britain. But he was on the winning side. Had we not gained our independence, I doubt very much that statues of him would have been tolerated.

Ok but I thought the question was should the statue be there not why it was there.

Here I'll formally ask it. 

Should we have monuments dedicated to former slave owners?

And another because I think Washington and others did some great things but also some really awful things.

Can great achievements cancel out terrible crimes?

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Ok but I thought the question was should the statue be there not why it was there.

Here I'll formally ask it. 

Should we have monuments dedicated to former slave owners?

And another because I think Washington and others did some great things but also some really awful things.

Can great achievements cancel out terrible crimes?

The issue isn't that Lee (or Washington) owned slaves. Owning slaves wasn't a crime at that time (though the fact that it was legal should be, along with other events, a continuing source of embarrassment about our past). That's just a red herring in this issue.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Who is this W.E.B. and why should I listen to him?/sarcasm

I read your link and it is a fair point but I would remind you Washington also took an oath to a king.

But none of that really matters to me Washington was a tratior to a country that regularly practised genocide to aquire new land and Lee was a tratior to a country that did the same thing.

What supercedes all (for me) is they both owned slaves. 

Yes, Washington took an oath to and would have hung had his side lost and there would be no monuments to him today. 

[Outrider]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

The issue isn't that Lee (or Washington) owned slaves. Owning slaves wasn't a crime at that time (though the fact that it was legal should be, along with other events, a continuing source of embarrassment about our past). That's just a red herring in this issue.

Yes it does bother me too particularly being a white boy from the south. The OPs question (I think) was should we remove civil war monuments? My answer is yes but my question is is that enough? My answer is no.

BTW neither you or Ten oz answered my questions above. I wish you would.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 BTW neither you or Ten oz answered my questions above. I wish you would.

I addressed both of them. In doing so, I explained why I will not actually answer them.

[Airbrush]

14 minutes ago, Outrider said:

.... should we remove civil war monuments?  My answer is yes but my question: is that enough?  My answer is no.

BTW neither you or Ten oz answered my questions above. I wish you would.

Then in your opinion what is enough?

It is called "whataboutism".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Andy did something bad.  What do you think about the bad thing Andy did? 

Well Bart did something bad too, what do you think about what Bart did?

We are talking about what Andy did.  If you want to start a discussion about what Bart did go ahead, somewhere else.

So why not leave it up to a majority vote of the local population?  Let them decide if they want a statue of Robert E. Lee?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Yes it does bother me too particularly being a white boy from the south. The OPs question (I think) was should we remove civil war monuments? My answer is yes but my question is is that enough? My answer is no.

BTW neither you or Ten oz answered my questions above. I wish you would.

The "Can great achievements cancel out terrible crimes" question? My answer is no. Obviously there is always cost analysis to things. In some situations one might consider potential benefits to out weigh crimes. U.S. govt treated some Nazi scientist very well post WW2. Doesn't mean Nazis aren't terrible and those scientist were absolved of evil. In context to the Confederacy I am not aware of any useful achievements which benefited the Nation that could be argued to have offset their crimes against this nation. 

[iNow]

The questions weren't directed to me, but I'll answer.

To be frank, you wouldn't find me marching in the street with torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us" if a decision was made to take down a monument of Columbus or Washington or Jefferson, or anyone else really.

I try to save my marching for things that actually matter like the rights of my fellow citizens and the principles which bind us together as a people, not cultural flash-points like these exploited solely to split us apart.

Edited August 28, 2017 by iNow

[Ten oz]

"Jews will not replace us" isn't the appropriate chant to protest anything. It is amazing to me that we are at a point in this country where people attempt to gloss over that simple sobering fact. 

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Then in your opinion what is enough?

I stated earlier destroy all monuments of former slave owners and erect the words "never again". Looking back I guess that's kind of extreme but then so is human bondage. My opinon on this is very much in flux and I'm  looking for your comments and others to help me make up my mind.

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

It is called "whataboutism".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Andy did something bad.  What do you think about the bad thing Andy did? 

Well Bart did something bad too, what do you think about what Bart did?

We are talking about what Andy did.  If you want to start a discussion about what Bart did go ahead, somewhere else.

If I was trying to exonerate Lee of the crime of being a slave owner that would be true but I have no such intention so.

Your original query was should the confederate monuments be removed. I expanded it to all slave owners and other crimes against humanity. I thought it related enough however since this is your thread if you really want me to open another I will.

Note: when I say crimes I mean things we all agree should never be done whether they were legal at the time or not.

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

So why not leave it up to a majority vote of the local population?  Let them decide if they want a statue of Robert E. Lee

Well yeah I agree but I want to know what you and others think. I find it important.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The questions weren't directed to me, but I'll answer.

To be frank, you wouldn't find me marching in the street with torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us" if a decision was made to take down a monument of Columbus or Washington or Jefferson, or anyone else really.

I try to save my marching for things that actually matter like the rights of my fellow citizens and the principles which bind us together as a people, not cultural flash-points like these exploited solely to split us apart.

Thank you for your reply and yes I agree with all of that. More when I have time.

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

"Jews will not replace us" isn't the appropriate chant to protest anything. It is amazing to me that we are at a point in this country where people attempt to gloss over that simple sobering fact. 

While I'm sure somebody somewhere is I don't think anyone here is certainly not me.

[John Cuthber]

13 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I stated earlier destroy all monuments of former slave owners and erect the words "never again".

Interesting viewpoint.
I'd not agree. I think we should leave the statues and put signs on them saying who they were, what they did and pointing out that, at one stage, we thought they deserved a statue as a monument but now we feel that we should leave the statues as a warning to posterity.

The trouble with getting rid of all statues of slave owners is that you wouldn't have many old statues left (at least, not of real people) and that would be a loss to the students of the history of art etc.

Destroying art isn't a symbol of a good society. Making sure people know what the art means seems more civilised to me.

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Your original query was should the confederate monuments be removed. I expanded it to all slave owners and other crimes against humanity. I thought it related enough however since this is your thread if you really want me to open another I will.
 

The difficulty with this stance is that given the constant change in mores, people in the future may find that everyone who lived prior to the 22nd Century committed crimes against humanity by eating meat, using hand sanitizer, and driving cars. It is somewhat unreasonable to condemn those who act in good faith, even if those actions are later to be considered objectionable.

[MigL]

Aside from the fact that a lot of these Civil War monuments were erected after the fact, for political/ideological reasons ( and so should and can be removed ), why stop at slave owners, or people who fought to preserve slavery ?

What about oppression/extermination of Native Americans ? Do J Monroe and A Jackson get a pass for being Presidents during the Indian Wars ? Or don't Aboriginal people count ?
How many Japanese were interned by F D Roosevelt during WW2, and how many were killed By H Truman's decision to use atomic weapons ?
And for you Brits, how many German civilians lost their lives when W Churchill ordered the fire bombing of Dresden, just to inflict the most pain on the German population and force a surrender ?
And how it was J F Kennedy that got the US embroiled in the Vietnam war ( Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis, etc., a regular war-monger), but R Nixon  ( a discredited President )who got our boys out ?
I could, of course, go on and on, but the point is, we would have no monuments left, no pictures on our money, no names for schools/federal buildings nor ships/carriers.

Education is the best way to fight intolerance, and redefine who we are.
Not by tearing down who we were.

Edited August 28, 2017 by MigL

[iNow]

Leaving aside the slippery slope nature of that point, I readily concede that I'm open to discussing taking down those other monuments.

Monuments are to celebrate and represent our values and celebrate that which we hold dear. If our values have improved, then I propose so too should our public statues that reflect them.

[Outrider]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

The difficulty with this stance is that given the constant change in mores, people in the future may find that everyone who lived prior to the 22nd Century committed crimes against humanity by eating meat, using hand sanitizer, and driving cars. It is somewhat unreasonable to condemn those who act in good faith, even if those actions are later to be considered objectionable.

I have no problem with any of that. If todays politicians had to walk past a statue of Washington denouncing him as a slaver and exterminator of innocents (also acknowledging his achievements) maybe they would think through their decisions more carefully. 

As for "acting in good faith" both Washington and Lee acknowledged that slavery was immoral and then made their excuses and continued on. 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Leaving aside the slippery slope nature of that point, I readily concede that I'm open to discussing taking down those other monuments.

Monuments are to celebrate and represent our values and celebrate that which we hold dear. If our values have improved, then I propose so too should our public statues that reflect them.

I actually though John C. had a better idea (I'm fixing to quote it). I think it shows great strength on our part to acknowledge our dark history and show how far we have come.

I think it doesn't hurt from time to time to pat ourselves on the back. I am proud of America and I think our history is one of continual improvement albeit way to slow.

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Interesting viewpoint.
I'd not agree. I think we should leave the statues and put signs on them saying who they were, what they did and pointing out that, at one stage, we thought they deserved a statue as a monument but now we feel that we should leave the statues as a warning to posterity.

The trouble with getting rid of all statues of slave owners is that you wouldn't have many old statues left (at least, not of real people) and that would be a loss to the students of the history of art etc.

Destroying art isn't a symbol of a good society. Making sure people know what the art means seems more civilised to me.

Excellent idea John I think the signs should both note the good they did along with the evil. And also note that we are (for the most part) getting better.

[Raider5678]

On 8/20/2017 at 11:18 AM, iNow said:

Because monuments demonstrate what we revere and give visual form to the values which stitch us together as a people.

To revere those who stood for hate and to honor the acts of those who defended the continued abuse of civil rights and the continuance of slavery and subjugation based on skin color alone is a slap in the face to those most personally connected to it.

We must not whitewash history and we must look honestly and openly on our past, discussing its complexities, asking new questions, and learning from their answers, but that's what history books and museums and conversations with fellow community members are for. 

Monuments and statues, however, are intended as a celebration and we mustn't celebrate that which forces us apart or that which signifies and reveres the darkest parts of our human nature. 

You must also take into account what the confederacy fought for.

I'm sure you know your history well enough that they didn't ONLY fight for slavery.

The average confederate soldier had basically no care at all if slaves were owned or not. Most didn't own any. 

 

The statues represent history to me. Not something we celebrate. Memorials, reminders, warnings. And celebration is included in that. Yes.

 

I suppose you support tearing down veteran memorials too? 

Not straw manning. Asking. Do you or not? Because there are democrats that I KNOW who think both civil war statues and veteran memorials should be torn down. On the case that "We shouldn't celebrate war."

[iNow]

 

19 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I think it shows great strength on our part to acknowledge our dark history and show how far we have come.

I readily acknowledge our dark history and am all about showing our progress. Most would just prefer not doing it every single day driving to and from work or when bringing kids to school. I feel part that progress you reference involves placing better ideals up on those pedestals. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by iNow

[Outrider]

Very good post MigL I appreciate it. But how bout instead of some dead white guys head on our money we just put "love everybody".

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The average confederate soldier had basically no care at all if slaves were owned or not. 

I'm sure some didn't care, but you're wrong to suggest that most (or even the average) didn't. 

Quote

I suppose you support tearing down veteran memorials too? 

Depends on the actual memorial, doesn't it.

[Outrider]

30 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You must also take into account what the confederacy fought for.

I'm sure you know your history well enough that they didn't ONLY fight for slavery.

The average confederate soldier had basically no care at all if slaves were owned or not. Most didn't own any. 

Please be very carefull when researching the civil war as of 2002 there exists over 70,000 books on the subject and my WAG would be that at least 30% of whats written is pure speculation. IMO the best you can do is gather many different viewpoints, weigh them carefully and decide what you want to believe.

I believe that its true that only 5 to 10% of americans owned slaves at any given time. But for the ones that didn't freeing the slaves still threatened their lifestyle. For one it would increase competition for some of the better jobs for another the poorest southerners knew that emancipation would be less of a step up for African Americans and more of a step down for them. Class warfare was very much in play all over our new country at this time. Also look at the period before the war in Kansas and other territories the war was already on with both sides rushing to spill blood.

Yes you are right this war, like any other war, was about different things for different people but make no mistake its focal point was slavery.

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Outrider
Missed a word,again, sigh

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm sure some didn't care, but you're wrong to suggest that most (or even the average) didn't. 

Depends on the actual memorial, doesn't it.

Only about 40% owned slaves. And while I agree with you, I'm sure even more aspired to own slaves, you can't deny the tensions the rose previously over that because of state rights and the such. The idea that states should be allowed to choose to own slaves I'm sure, is something a lot of confederate soldiers fought and died for.

But the idea that confederates only fought to protect slavery falls apart when you see why the union fought.

The union fought to protect itself from destroying itself. Not to end slavery. 

Also. If we went back in time and told the confederate leaders they weren't fighting to protect slaves, I'm sure they would have called us fools. Because part of it was about slaves. But you can't say it was the one and only reason.

And slavery is just one issue.

What about the massacres of Indians? Imprisonment of Japanese? And Vietnam?  If we tore down every statue of someone who did something bad, we'd have no statues left. We'd have no pictures on our currency, we'd have no memorials, we'd have nothing.

I'd go with John.

Keep the statues. Change the plaques .

 

 

Vietnam memorial because those soldiers were all "baby killers" ,  "murders", and "Torturers." I'd assume on your part? Because you know. Those guys wanted to be drafted.

How about world war two memorials? "Pointless war. Those soldiers fought for money and to create nukes. They were all stupid, thinking they were fighting for a good cause."

How about world war one memorials? "Another pointless war for power and money."

Civil war? Obviously. We're talking about it right now.

Revolutionary war? "They fought for a good cause. But a lot of those soldiers did bad stuff, and they were cruel to people back then. They hung people and were merciless. They don't deserve respect."

 

I'm sure not everyone on the left side has the same opinions as the few people I've quoted here.

But I warn you now. What seems extreme today may be common place in a decade or two.

5 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Please be very carefull when researching the civil war as of 2002 there exists over 70,000 books on the subject and my WAG would be that at least 30% of whats written is pure speculation. IMO the best you can do is gather many different viewpoints, weigh them carefully and decide what you want to believe.

I believe that its true that only 5 to 10% of americans owned slaves at any given time. But for the ones that didn't freeing the slaves still threatened their lifestyle. For one it would increase competition for some of the better jobs for another the poorest southerners knew that emancipation would be less of a step up for African Americans and more of a step down for them. Class warfare was very much in play all over our new country at this time. Also look at the period before the war in Kansas and other territories the war was already on with both sides rushing to spill blood.

Yes you are right this war, like any other war, was about different things for different people but make no mistake its focal point was slavery.

It's like the Republicans arguing Democrats are trying to support and encourage abortion. To us (let's not get into an argument about abortion. This is an example. There's plenty of threads on abortion already, so don't start an argument about it.) it's barbaric. We're killing Babies in our opinion. But to democrats, I'm pretty sure most support the decision to committing abortion, rather then saying people should abort babies.

The support of the action, and the support of the decision are different things. Don't forget that.

If the confederates said the non slave holding states were trying to take power away from them. Note that during the election the confederates had 5.5 million people. Versus the Unions 18 million.

They were incredibly outvoted. To the point they had almost no say in the national government. And since this group of people was grouped up geography, it led to a lot of problems. If they had no state rights, they had no power in government. 

The issue of slavery was the spear point. The issues with government, politics, and other things, was the shaft driving this spear. It took an otherwise weaker problem, and made it a threat.