Removing Civil War Monuments

[Moontanman]

I am from WV, I grew up in hillbilly heaven.... But to be honest I never thought of the civil war as something other than history, the past, something difficult to understand. WV seems to be caught up in this "worship" of the good old days except nowadays they've switched sides. Technically WV was part of the North, WV citizens fought for the north. It always seemed like some sort tall tail, then when I moved south there seemed to be statues every place. I felt it quite odd the see statues of men who were really traitors, I got over it, but it did seem odd...  

 

[Ten oz]

@ Raider5678 & Outrider, you both seem to be making this about slavery. You both seem to be implying that calls for removal of these monuments are becasue some Confederates owned slave. You're even discussing amongst yourselfs what percentage of them owned slaves. The issue is that they were traitors that fought to destory the United States of America. Had the Confederacy won the United States would not exist. The fact that in addition to killing their own countrymen many were slave onwers and bigots it just icing on the cake. The Confederacies efforts is not something that helped establish a more perfect union. They sought to end us.

 

What percentage owned slaves and how each Confederate soldierfelt about slavery in general isn't important. Here is 2017 a lot more people talk about and support policy base on Coal mining jobs than actually work in coal mines. I doubt many of the torch carrying protesters chanting "Jews will not replace us" have had many, if any at all, interactions with Jewish communities. It is normal for concepts and ideas which aren't active in peoples daily lives to be rallying cries for movements. How many confederates owned slaves don't change the fact that they killed their own countrymen.

 

The National Parks Service has a whole department devoted to the preservation of history. Historical buildings and lands get bulldozed all the time to make way for pipelines, new buildings, and etc. It is normal for politicians to attack The National Parks Service history preservation guidlines as too strict and bad for business. They are part of the proverbial red tape we hear so muchh about. Rather than those who love history so much hyper focusing on monuments erected decades if not a hundred years after the end of the Civil War perhaps they should champion increasing The National Parks Service's budget and strengthening their guidelines. Lots of history is lost all the time.

[Outrider]

Ten oz

Maybe for you its about tratiors but that's not why all those people showed up in Charlottesville and it has nothing to do with the proposal to remove Lee's statue.

http://fortune.com/2017/08/13/charlottesville-statue-lee-removal/

Quote

The treatment of Confederate monuments and symbols in the South has become increasingly contentious in recent years. Liberal and progressive groups argue that leaving them intact amounts to a refusal to reckon with the legacy of slavery and white supremacism in the U.S., while some conservatives regard the symbols as more neutral tributes to the sacrifice and valor of Confederate soldiers.

Here are a couple more articles I found interesting and thought might be food for thought. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/robert-e-lee-v-what-its-like-to-carry-around-this-name/2017/08/17/991e470e-8363-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.ab33d5753ff3

Robert E. Lee V great great grandson of Lee when asked about the statue and Lee's legacy.

Quote

 

First and foremost, if it can avoid any days like this past Saturday in Charlottesville, then take them down today. That’s not what our family is at all interested in, and that’s not what we think General Lee would want whatsoever. . .

But it’s such a tragic event. And I just hate for some people to hide behind Robert E. Lee’s name. Saying we are doing this for him and for the South, and that’s not at all what he stood for. He is one who said immediately after the war to put your arms down and let’s bring this nation back together — not divide it even further.

 

From newsweek I thought was a good read.

http://www.newsweek.com/think-about-you-tear-down-robert-e-lee-statue-655965

Quote

 

– every US Army installation named after a Confederate General was established either during or the months leading up to the US entering either World War I or II.

Military recruiting may partially explain the federal government’s use of Confederate leaders’ names in these contexts, but that then raises several thorny questions.

While military service has always been demanding and dangerous, the US has been in one or more armed conflicts for the last 16 years. And it is the South that has provided a disproportionately larger percentage of our service members. In 2013, 44 percent of all US military recruits came from the South, despite that region only accounting for 36 percent of the 18-24 year old population. 

Now layer on top of that the fact that active duty enlistment draws more heavily from the African American population than their makeup of the general population, and the Army and Navy are the most racially diverse services.

 

 

21 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

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. 

Its been a very long time since I did any serious reading on the civil war but this sounds about right.

[iNow]

We have access to the actual declaration of secession documents. Can you guess what theme edged out states rights? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't abolition or emancipation. 

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

Quote

One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources.  Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union.

(snip)

Slavery

1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective. 

2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

 

To be frank, though, all this talk of slavery and reasons for secession is a gigantic red herring.

The issue is these monuments, specifically their removal. People will disagree, but those supporting the move state their motivation as the fact that they celebrate traitors and were erected primarily to continue the intimidation of huge portions of our population, namely non-whites.

Tradition and history are celebrated in other ways (interesting parallel here, tradition and history were also the primary arguments against same sex marriage, but I digress). Statues, however, are visual representations of our heroes and values.

Can we not finally be mature enough to take them down and represent more enlightened ideals? Can we truly not celebrate better heroes? Are these really the best examples we have to hoist up on to a pedestal?

Edited August 29, 2017 by iNow

[Raider5678]

13 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@ Raider5678 & Outrider, you both seem to be making this about slavery. You both seem to be implying that calls for removal of these monuments are becasue some Confederates owned slave. You're even discussing amongst yourselfs what percentage of them owned slaves. The issue is that they were traitors that fought to destory the United States of America. Had the Confederacy won the United States would not exist. The fact that in addition to killing their own countrymen many were slave onwers and bigots it just icing on the cake. The Confederacies efforts is not something that helped establish a more perfect union. They sought to end us.

Actually I'm against removing the statues.

I'm sure you didn't have time to read our conversations thoroughly, but I just thought I'd point that out.

 

Anyways, the confederate army played the defensive. It's one of the reasons they did so well compared to the Union. 

And it's false to say they sought to end us, because we know know, and I'm sure they knew then, there was no way they could destroy the Union. They were outnumbered. They had worse equipment and they had no formal army compared to the Union.

The only way the confederates would have won the war is if the Union simply gave up.

Not surrendered, not defeated, not destroyed. Simply decided it was too costly to force the confederate states to join the United states again, and gave up. That is the playing card General Grant was playing off of. But when the war started going in their favor, he sought to get Britain to ally with the confederate states. If he could have proved that the confederate army was capable of winning battles on enemy ground, the Prime Minister would have most likely joined the side of the Confederacy. At which point, the Union would have stopped attacking the Confederate forces. 

Confederate soldiers joined the army because the Union was invading their homes. They were burning their land, destroying their crops, and devastating everything they captured.

They didn't join to destroy the Union. They joined because it was a matter of survival. If they lost, they'd lost everything. 

[MonDie]

Moving and destruction are different.  Some of those statues might symbolize something different in a different location.  Russia apparently began hacking Estonia ten years ago after the Estonian government moved a Soviet statue out of the town center and into a cemetery.

[Raider5678]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can we not finally be mature enough to take them down and represent more enlightened ideals? Can we truly not celebrate better heroes? Are these really the best examples we have to hoist up on to a pedestal?

What hero's though? What hero's didn't do anything wrong?

Also, what about veteran's memorials? I wrote a large part about that. I know for a fact there are people on the left who think all those veterans should be tried as criminals.

One of them went so far as to spit on a Vietnam veteran. I don't think Vietnam was a war worth fighting. But most of those soldiers were drafted and were following orders. And I respect that fact that they were in war, and I was not. A war where people died. People they knew.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What hero's though?

We can discuss that, and it will depend entirely on each location under discussion as well as what the community living there desire.

That said, it's a completely separate question you're asking.

You don't even yet agree that statues intended to intimidate black people, to reinforce Jim Crow segregation, and celebrate traitors are worth removing despite how far we've moved past those divisions.

We should focus there first.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

We can discuss that, and it will depend entirely on each location under discussion as well as what the community living there desire.

That said, it's a completely separate question you're asking.

You don't even yet agree that statues intended to intimidate black people, to reinforce Jim Crow segregation, and celebrate traitors are worth removing despite how far we've moved past those divisions.

We should focus there first.

George Washington was a traitor to Britain.  

 

Anyways, what's your opinion on veteran memorials?

You said it depended.

I provided my opinion and others. What is yours?

 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

George Washington was a traitor to Britain.  

Unless there are statues in Britain of George Washington that people are arguing over whether or not to take down, this is both a false comparison and irrelevant. 

To answer your question about veteran memorials, I'd need to know which one(s). Context matters. Are there Vietnam memorials celebrating slavery and treason that I'm unaware of? WWII statues of people who supported the nazi cause, perhaps?

Edited August 30, 2017 by iNow

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

Unless there are statues in Britain of George Washington that people are arguing about whether or not to take down, this is both a false comoarison and irrelevant. 

To answer your question about veteran memorials, I'd need to know which one(s). Context matters. Are there Vietnam memorials celebrating slavery and treason that I'm unaware of?

I asked you about veterans memorials in general. From vietnam, to world war 2, world war 1, revolutionary war, civil war, etc.

I know people on the left side of politics, who think there should be no memorials to those people.

Do you agree? And if not, do you agree for particular wars? And if not then, do you think there are any veteran memorials that should be taken down?

It's a very simple question. Do you have anything against any veteran memorials?

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I know people on the left side of politics, who think there should be no memorials to those people.

Do you agree?

No. Now... You'll have to more specific and discuss actual statues (or open a new thread) if you wish for me to continue chasing this off-topic red herring about statues unrelated to the confederacy and intimidation of black people. 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually I'm against removing the statues.

I'm sure you didn't have time to read our conversations thoroughly, but I just thought I'd point that out.

Where did I say you were pro removal??

 

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Anyways, the confederate army played the defensive. It's one of the reasons they did so well compared to the Union. 

And it's false to say they sought to end us, because we know know, and I'm sure they knew then, there was no way they could destroy the Union. They were outnumbered. They had worse equipment and they had no formal army compared to the Union.

The only way the confederates would have won the war is if the Union simply gave up.

Not surrendered, not defeated, not destroyed. Simply decided it was too costly to force the confederate states to join the United states again, and gave up. That is the playing card General Grant was playing off of. But when the war started going in their favor, he sought to get Britain to ally with the confederate states. If he could have proved that the confederate army was capable of winning battles on enemy ground, the Prime Minister would have most likely joined the side of the Confederacy. At which point, the Union would have stopped attacking the Confederate forces. 

Confederate soldiers joined the army because the Union was invading their homes. They were burning their land, destroying their crops, and devastating everything they captured.

They didn't join to destroy the Union. They joined because it was a matter of survival. If they lost, they'd lost everything. 

By "we us" I meant end the United States. I think the context was clearly stated. It is not possible for both the Confederacy to have successfully seceded and the United States to have continued to exist. In stating that they played defense and couldn't destory the Union forces you seem to be confused about what secession is. The confederacy didn't need to storm union states anymore than the rebels needed to invade England during the revolution. They just needed to win on the land they sought to form their own nation upon: TX, LA, AR, MS, GA, FL, TN, SC, NC, and VA.  

 

As for why people joined and what happened if they lost; they did lose. You are loosely attempting to list atrocities and paint Confederates the victim as if their motives weren't a clear matter of historical record. A formal declaration for secession was written where it argued that post revolutionary war all states were sovereign self governing nations onto themselves. Amongst their list of grievances was not anything about door to door home invasions. The grievances outlined were legislative. Additionally people like Robert E Lee wrote letters and books in real time about the politics of the day, seccession, and war; the crux of the issues were state independence and constitutional limitations of legislative authority of the federal govt.

 

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

George Washington was a traitor to Britain.  

 

Washington would have surely been executed have the revolution failed. Which monument are erected to Washington in Britain?

[swansont]

On 8/28/2017 at 9:42 PM, Raider5678 said:

 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. 

This conveniently ignores the fact that the Constitution was written in a way that enhanced the political power of slaveholder states. First of all, being outnumbered matters not a whit in the Senate. Every state has two senators. That gives "small" states extra power in proportion to their population. Secondly, there is the 3/5 clause. Slaves were property, but they counted toward the census for both representatives and in the electoral college. From that point of view, the south had more influence than they should have had. At the time the Constitution was written this gave Virginia 12 of the 91 electoral votes. At the time of the civil war, the south also had 3.5 million slaves. The 5.5 million people had votes that counted as if they had 7.6 million people in federal elections.

 

[Outrider]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Which monument are erected to Washington in Britain?

The one in London of course. Oddly enough a gift from Virginia in 1924.

https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/george-washington-in-trafalgar-square/

 

[Ten oz]

49 minutes ago, Outrider said:

The one in London of course. Oddly enough a gift from Virginia in 1924.

https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/george-washington-in-trafalgar-square/

 

I wasn't aware there was one. Seems like a passive aggressive gift. If people wanted it moved I wouldn't grab a torch and chant anti-Semitic rhetoric over it. 

[Outrider]

Okay.

If you say you want to move the statue because Lee was a slaveowner. I say OK lets do it today.

If you say you want to move the statue because hate groups use it as a symbol. I say oh yeah lets get this done.

If you say you want to move the statue because some people are offended and/or feel oppressed by it. I say lets not wait another day.

If you say you want to move the statue because Lee was a tratior. I say show me where he was tried and convicted.

Lee served his country before and after the war and I don't think he deserves the tratior brand and even if you  convince me he does I will still find the crime of slavery far far worse.

[Area54]

We have kept the ovens and the camps in Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz-Birkenau and used them effectively to teach a lesson. For that reason alone I would retain those statues. It is how they are presented/portrayed that is key.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

 If you say you want to move the statue because Lee was a tratior. I say show me where he was tried and convicted.

That's pretty weak tea. Let's celebrate Richard Nixon because he was never tried and convicted.  

53 minutes ago, Area54 said:

We have kept the ovens and the camps in Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz-Birkenau and used them effectively to teach a lesson. For that reason alone I would retain those statues. It is how they are presented/portrayed that is key.

Those are memorials to the victims of horrors, not to the Nazis that perpetrated them. You want memorials for those who fell fighting for the south? We have them. Battlefields and cemeteries.  

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, Area54 said:

We have kept the ovens and the camps in Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz-Birkenau and used them effectively to teach a lesson. For that reason alone I would retain those statues. It is how they are presented/portrayed that is key.

Once more, that's a true historic location where events actually occurred. It should be treated differently as it's not a monument erected after the fact to celebrate what happened there. 

[Area54]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Those are memorials to the victims of horrors, not to the Nazis that perpetrated them. You want memorials for those who fell fighting for the south? We have them. Battlefields and cemeteries.  

The camps were erected for genocide. They now serve a different purpose.

The statues were erected to honour a world view. They can be repurposed.

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Once more, that's a true historic location where events actually occurred. It should be treated differently as it's not a monument erected after the fact to celebrate what happened there

Both are symbols. It is as symbols they have the potential to create problems, but they also have the potential to provide solutions.

[Outrider]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's pretty weak tea. Let's celebrate Richard Nixon because he was never tried and convicted

Does this mean you favor the removal of his statues and the renaming of his library?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Outrider

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Does this mean you favor the removal of his statues and the renaming of his library?

Did I say anything of the sort? I merely made the point that not being tried and convicted does not mean one is not guilty. It's disappointing that this needed to be spelled out.

The Nixon library is now officially part of the national archives (though it originally was private property, and had it remained so would be a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned). So this is more like the cemeteries and battlefields.  (Plus the fact that Nixon actually did some things of note other than his involvement with Watergate)

There are statues that are part of larger displays, e.g. "presidents of the US", and he was indeed a president. All part of historical displays, which many civil war statues are not.

The best analogous effort is having the statues in museums.  

[Outrider]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Did I say anything of the sort?

No hence the question mark.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The Nixon library is now officially part of the national archives (though it originally was private property, and had it remained so would be a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned). So this is more like the cemeteries and battlefields.

So would you be ok with a federally funded Lee library? Note the question mark please.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

(Plus the fact that Nixon actually did some things of note other than his involvement with Watergate)

What does this have to do with anything?

 

3 well actually 4 proposals have been made:

1.Leave the statue(s) alone and nothing.  Easily the worst of the bunch and if Charlottesville decides to do this I will be sorely disappointed. 

2. Destroy them.

3. Move them to museums and such.

4. Change the plaques to show all their deeds both honorable and despicable. I am much in favor with this one.

But why we do this is just as important as doing it. Among my other objections to the "tratior reason" I would like to add that I think it takes away from the only reason that we need.

I really don't know  what else I can say at this point I could list Lee's more honorable deeds if you want but I really don't see the point. 

Gonna start a new thread on some of the other slaveowners soon. I think its a conversation that should be had. Hope yo sre you there.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, Outrider said:

No hence the question mark.

So would you be ok with a federally funded Lee library? Note the question mark please.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

3 well actually 4 proposals have been made:

1.Leave the statue(s) alone and nothing.  Easily the worst of the bunch and if Charlottesville decides to do this I will be sorely disappointed. 

2. Destroy them.

3. Move them to museums and such.

4. Change the plaques to show all their deeds both honorable and despicable. I am much in favor with this one.

But why we do this is just as important as doing it. Among my other objections to the "tratior reason" I would like to add that I think it takes away from the only reason that we need.

I really don't know  what else I can say at this point I could list Lee's more honorable deeds if you want but I really don't see the point. 

Gonna start a new thread on some of the other slaveowners soon. I think its a conversation that should be had. Hope yo sre you there.

The monument in Charlottesville wasn't paid for with federal funds. Paul Goodloe Mcintire paid for the statue and even bought up the land to put it on, It went up 59yrs after the war ended. So why should federal funds be responsible for it now? There are 1,503 symbols ( monuments, statues,  names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, and etc) of the Confederacy spread out across 36 states. Many of these went up a hundred years after the war ended. some have gone up within that last decade. Are all "historical" works that deserve to either stay or be preserved in a museum? The Confederate Monument in Springfield, TN just went up in 2012 is it now a automatically some important part of history which can't be removed?  

 

As for Robert E Lee being a traitor:

"On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President. Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Virginia 9 April '65.

Oath of amnesty submitted by Robert E. Lee in 1865

On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson's proclamation. Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#President_Johnson.27s_amnesty_pardons