Alabama House Passes Confederate Monuments Bill

[Objective Voice]

A lot of people are pretty upset about this, but I have to ask why? Sure, the South represented slavery, but as much as you might want to parade the Stone Mountain speech, and the various article of secession into this thread, that is not the issue. The issue is the state of Alabama wanting to preserve part of it's own history. Having statues of Confederate generals and statesmen is not the same as embracing the Confederate flag. Although slavery is an important aspect of the Civil War, what Alabama is preserving is not slavery, but the memory of a people who fought hard, many of them gallantly, during the war. It doesn't matter if they were on the wrong side. It matters that they sacrificed, bled, and died just as much as Union troops did. There are statues of Grant in the North, so why not statues of Lee in the South. I don't agree with what Stonewall Jackson believed in, but I can respect the fact that he fought and died, like so many others on both sides did. So yea, I have no problem with statues of Stonewall Jackson either. Don't begrudge Alabama keeping their monuments. That is not the same as supporting the KKK. If you can't wrap your mind around that, then you have no understanding of what these monuments mean to them, and I will call this anger for what it is - Political correctness run amok.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...a-house-to-vote-on-confederate-monuments-bill

I don't have a problem with any southern state wanting to preserve this part of its heritage and, thus, its history. If that statue was erected or relocated to ceremonial site, i.e., a Confederate War cemetary, battleground, residence of a prominent figure from the Confederacy (i.e., Gen. Robert E. Lee's home or military fort where he held command) or dedicated memorial site, I wouldn't have a problem with that one bit. It's when the Confederate Flag, for example, is raised over a southern state capital or other location(s) that has nothing to do with the direct history or an event associated with the southern participation in the Civil War, that's where I have a problem.

Clearly, this AL law is in response to other southern states in what many are calling a "knee-jerk response" to removing what some state residence consider to be offensive monuments on public lands. I say if the monument isn't on property directly connected to the Civil War or on a sight that clearly commemorates the Confederacy, IMO it should be removed.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So you're surrendering? Can't explain your assertion?

 

[Moot]

So you're surrendering? Can't explain your assertion?

The South lost the war. Get over it.

 

[Athanasius68]

Seems that there are no monuments in the US glorifying England from the revolutionary war so why should there be monuments of the loser south for the civil war? Unless the south glorifies traitors to the US.

Like i said, those who actually fought the war buried the hatchet during their lives. Why reopen ib?

 

[Athanasius68]

Utterly and totally irreleavnt to the matter at hand.

No, there is no honor in treason. Confederates were traitors.

That seems to really bother the ultra-snowflake right wing.

After the war, southerners who fought in the war for the Confederacy served in Congress, the USA Army and in general returned to normal civil life. If northerners of the 19th century could settle things in their own mind, why cant folks of the 21st?

 

[apdst]

Not true...

Would you donate to the construction of the museum?

 

[Praxas]

Like i said, those who actually fought the war buried the hatchet during their lives. Why reopen ib?

If the hatchet is buried those monuments mean nothing then and they can be removed right? Funny that you support glorifying traitors. Maybe you are what's wrong with the us.

 

[Athanasius68]

If the hatchet is buried those monuments mean nothing then and they can be removed right? Funny that you support glorifying traitors. Maybe you are what's wrong with the us.

Like I said, the folks who fought the war settled things in their mind.
Why re-open it?

 

[Celebrity]

Like I said, the folks who fought the war settled things in their mind.
Why re-open it?

This reminds me of that time I cited the dissenting opinion of a court case and someone (probably Turtledude) didn't much like that. Still, we managed to come together as a nation, despite our differences of opinion in court.

I cited the jurisprudence of a sitting judge on our nation's highest court, who delivered a minority opinion. Confederates were slavers and rabble rousers. So there's one difference.

Anyone else care to twist the blade of that hatchet?

 

[Moot]

Would you donate to the construction of the museum?

I'm not the one that wants to save them...so perhaps the people that do should pay for the museum. Or they could just put them to rest in the confederate cemeteries

 

[nota bene]

Monuments like that perpetrate the myth of the southern cause and white superiority. It's a shameful reminder of the biggest stain ever laid on this country and those today that would defend it have no honor.

I will ardently condemn the defacing and defiling of any cemetery monument. And I will remind you too that the families of Dylann Roof forgave him. How tragic that their mercy and forgiveness of his hate is unable to inspire you. I'll just shake my head at your missing entirely my larger point.

"PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him. And perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. … No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent…; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne. Meditation 17. [No man is an island... For whom the bell tolls, etc.]

 

[Celebrity]

Ladies and gentlemen... just remember, soylent green is made of people. And going green is hip with the kids. Why not recycle?

 

[Praxas]

Like I said, the folks who fought the war settled things in their mind.
Why re-open it?

There's no reopening it since the monuments mean nothing then it's only traitorous fools that care.

 

[Moot]

After the war, southerners who fought in the war for the Confederacy served in Congress, the USA Army and in general returned to normal civil life. If northerners of the 19th century could settle things in their own mind, why cant folks of the 21st?

As soon as the northern troops left the south...the KKK was formed, Jim Crowe laws were passed and blacks were prevented from voting...for the next 80 years or so. The war in lot of peoples minds never really ended...due in large part to Southern revisionist history and white supremacy.

More than 140 years ago, Mark Twain observed that the Civil War had "uprooted institutions that were centuries old, changed the politics of a people, transformed the social life of half the country, and wrought so profoundly upon the entire national character that the influence cannot be measured short of two or three generations." In fact, five generations have passed, and Americans are still trying to measure the influence of the immense fratricidal conflict that nearly tore the nation apart...."

The War that Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters.​

 

[nota bene]

There's no reopening it since the monuments mean nothing then it's only traitorous fools that care.

I care about the monuments because I care about history and also because I have respect for the dead.

I am neither a traitor nor a fool.

 

[Praxas]

I care about the monuments because I care about history and also because I have respect for the dead.

I am neither a traitor nor a fool.

Then feel free to donate to have it in a museum otherwise it goes.

 

[nota bene]

Then feel free to donate to have it in a museum otherwise it goes.

I'd rather they all stand. You feel free to get over yourself.

https://www.britishcouncil.org/voic...g-cultural-heritage-more-just-material-damage

From the Federalist:

The drive to erase the Confederacy from our public squares isn’t really about unity or tolerance. It’s about power and politics. Censoring historical symbols is after all the cousin of censoring speech and inquiry. Hence the spectacle of Mayor Landrieu explaining how the Confederacy was “on the wrong side of history,” even as he rips up historical monuments in the name of progress.

At a time when the divisions in our country are deepening, and Americans are sorting themselves into increasingly hostile factions, we could do worse than to gaze on Confederate statues, contemplate their reasons for fighting, and consider what it took to put the country back together.

New Orleans Is Wrong To Remove Its Confederate Monuments

 

[Moot]

I will ardently condemn the defacing and defiling of any cemetery monument. And I will remind you too that the families of Dylann Roof forgave him. How tragic that their mercy and forgiveness of his hate is unable to inspire you. I'll just shake my head at your missing entirely my larger point.

"PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him. And perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. … No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent…; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne. Meditation 17. [No man is an island... For whom the bell tolls, etc.]

And so you should...as should we all. However, most the confederate monuments that should be removed are not in cemeteries...but should be. The monument that I posted was not in a cemetery, either.

 

[Moot]

after the confederate monument issue dies down, the people protesting their removal will be off and on to another issue.

That issue has been going on for years and it's only recently that the monuments are being taken down all over the South. That's called progress.

 

[sanman]

Because Grant didn't fight for the right to continue owning slaves, and Lee did. And no, that's not "political correctness run amuck"--- it's the truth.

This trend we've being seeing on this site of pretending that the confederacy and union were morally equivalent, or that having monuments to Confederate troops isn't the same thing as embracing the Confederacy, is rather silly.

Why didn't Grant just declare Sanctuary Cities and Open Borders to allow all African slaves to come to the North and leave the independent South behind?

Answer:
The American Civil War wasn't about Slavery - it was a war against secession, and the Slavery issue was just a moral pretext fabricated by a North that needed an excuse to beat down the defiant secessionist South.

Most people who learn US history outside of American classrooms get the real version of what happened, and not the hagiography taught in the US.

 

[Tigerace117]

Why didn't Grant just declare Sanctuary Cities and Open Borders to allow all African slaves to come to the North and leave the independent South behind?

Answer:
The American Civil War wasn't about Slavery - it was a war against secession, and the Slavery issue was just a moral pretext fabricated by a North that needed an excuse to beat down the defiant secessionist South.

Most people who learn US history outside of American classrooms get the real version of what happened, and not the hagiography taught in the US.

Answer: Grant wasn't a time traveling right wing hack desperately trying to make everything about immigration.

Better luck next time.

Gee, why did the South want to secede again? Oh, that's right---- they were worried Lincoln was going to get rid of slavery.

So in reality slavery was the main factor there as well, driving the idea of secession.

 

[sanman]

Answer: Grant wasn't a time traveling right wing hack desperately trying to make everything about immigration.

Better luck next time.



Gee, why did the South want to secede again? Oh, that's right---- they were worried Lincoln was going to get rid of slavery.

So in reality slavery was the main factor there as well, driving the idea of secession.

So say the victors who write the history books - as all victors do.

What the North wanted was control over the South's economy, which was the underpinning of their political disregard of the North. The Slavery issue was found as a way to clip the South's wings - like WMD in Iraq or Syria.

The North didn't suddenly go through some miraculous moral epiphany to suddenly develop newfound respect for slaves. The political dynamics of the situation compelled their adoption of their new stance behind a moral pretext.

 

[EnigmaO01]

it was also a very scary place to be a republican as the democrat founded KKK targeted republicans as well as African Americans.

So you make my point it was scary bigoted place intolerant of others.

Thank you.

 

[Tigerace117]

So say the victors who write the history books - as all victors do.

What the North wanted was control over the South's economy, which was the underpinning of their political disregard of the North. The Slavery issue was found as a way to clip the South's wings - like WMD in Iraq or Syria.

The North didn't suddenly go through some miraculous moral epiphany to suddenly develop newfound respect for slaves. The political dynamics of the situation compelled their adoption of their new stance behind a moral pretext.

Except in the South, where they promptly adopted their own version of the "stabbed in the back" myth. Which, of course, is the one you have been mentioning.

No, the slavery issue was a central piece of southern culture and a one which was abhorred in Europe and, increasingly, in the Northern states. Add in the South's willingness to spite the North when the south ran the government for most of American history up to Lincoln and you get a populace quite fearful of being done unto as they did into. So when a president they didn't control got elected....

 

[Tigerace117]

it was also a very scary place to be a republican as the democrat founded KKK targeted republicans as well as African Americans.

The *Confederate founded* KKK. People like Nathan Bedford Forrest hardly saw themselves in the two party dual system we have today.