Confederate Monuments: Taken Down or Leave it Up?

[Black Dog]

Celebrating a defeated enemy is just ridicules. I am not saying erase them from history, that's not the point. When they seceded they became enemy combatants. As far as I know we don't have monuments celebrating the Englishman who died fighting in the revolutionary war. I am pretty certain we don't have monuments celebrating German or Japanese soldiers from WWII.

Just because we do not celebrate or put up monuments to glorify traitors to the US, does not mean we would forget the history.

We should not be celebrating enemy combatants.

 

[Absentglare]

In that case.....should we force Dodge City Kansas to remove all of the monuments to famous characters of the old west? afterall, the cowboys and Indians cultures in long gone. Should the south be forced to remove all of the old civil war forts, that bring in tourism? Personally, I would have fought for the north. However I do enjoy an occasional walk through of a preserved civil war fort, just over the history. How far would you like to go with the "Take it down" movement. Shall we burn all of the Mark Twain Books? Ban the showings "Gone with the Wind"?

It's not that they're long gone that's the problem. It's that the reasons to honor them have become outweighed by the reasons not to.

Celebrating General Lee or whatever is fine for a person, but when the government stands up and does it, that can be an alienating message.

I'm aware that the people we glorify aren't all saints and angels. But we're not really glorifying everything Thomas Jefferson did, just what he's known for. What is General Lee known for other than going to war over slavery...?

Sorry, the association between these confederate-side civil war leaders and slavery is no longer appropriate to glorify. That's just my opinion. If it were up to me, they'd be moved into museums. You're free to disagree.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I dont know how I feel about this in the end because on the one hand it is time to move on, but on the other hand the way that it is being done....the pressure, the lack of tolerance, shows how badly this nation has slipped and I dont want to support that.

 

[Absentglare]

There are multiple monuments to Napoleon Bonaparte. A general that killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Waged war multiple times on continental Europe, and caused great damage and harm to many nations.

With your logic, all these monuments should be taken down as well then?

It depends on what they're known for and who is in charge.

If some Wisconsin farmer wants a Hitler monument, he can house one on his property.

If the government asks me whether i want to maintain a monument for a confederate civil war leader, i'm going to say no. For Napoleon, i would probably also say no, i don't really see why it would make sense here in Colorado.

You're free to disagree. I understand that if you disagree, that doesn't make you a racist, or a slavery supporter, or whatever.

I associate confederate civil war leaders with slavery and that's the root of my opinion. Monuments are for our best representatives.

 

[Parrish]

Wrong when it come to such men as Lee as he stated from the beginning that he consider this first obligation the protection of the state of Virginia as she was his 'nation' not the USA and when Virginia decided to go with the south he needed to offer his sword in protection of Virginia from the union.

If Virginia had decided instead to remain in the union there is little question as far as I am concern that he would had taken the offer to command the northern forces given to him by General Scott /President Lincoln and put down the rebellion.

"His Nation." His nation was not the USA. That's key.

Andrew Jackson is the hero of the Alt-Rights, Nativists. Check out VDare, Infostormer, Dailystormer.

This is a turd that can't be polished. Sorry.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

You have no idea how foolish you look with that claim. You really should learn the actual history of both parties. It was southern democrats who went white supremist. And the republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party. the longest filibuster of the Civil Rights act was by none other then Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who was a grand cyclops and Kleagle in the KKK....not to mention....a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act then democrats.

Not to mention that Idaho Democrat that said her job is to "shut white people down" To much applause....so who are the supremacists, here?

 

[Slingshot Bob]

It depends on what they're known for and who is in charge.

If some Wisconsin farmer wants a Hitler monument, he can house one on his property.

If the government asks me whether i want to maintain a monument for a confederate civil war leader, i'm going to say no. For Napoleon, i would probably also say no, i don't really see why it would make sense here in Colorado.

You're free to disagree. I understand that if you disagree, that doesn't make you a racist, or a slavery supporter, or whatever.

I associate confederate civil war leaders with slavery and that's the root of my opinion. Monuments are for our best representatives.

So use that very same, logic to remove the Washington monument.

 

[Absentglare]

So use that very same, logic to remove the Washington monument.

No, that is not the same logic. What is the person or event known for? It should be something honorable if we choose to honor them.

It's not that they're long gone that's the problem. It's that the reasons to honor them have become outweighed by the reasons not to.

Celebrating General Lee or whatever is fine for a person, but when the government stands up and does it, that can be an alienating message.

I'm aware that the people we glorify aren't all saints and angels. But we're not really glorifying everything Thomas Jefferson did, just what he's known for. What is General Lee known for other than going to war over slavery...?

Sorry, the association between these confederate-side civil war leaders and slavery is no longer appropriate to glorify. That's just my opinion. If it were up to me, they'd be moved into museums. You're free to disagree.

George Washington is known for honorable things, even if he has also done far less honorable things.

 

[Sherman123]

Yes, and I'm proud to have contributed to successful efforts to have them removed.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

No, that is not the same logic. What is the person or event known for? It should be something honorable if we choose to honor them.



George Washington is known for honorable things, even if he has also done far less honorable things.

Like own slaves? So he gets a pass?
So only confederate slave owners are to be reviled, or am I missing something? These other men did honorable deeds also, at some point, no doubt.

 

[Absentglare]

Like own slaves? So he gets a pass?
So only confederate slave owners are to be reviled, or am I missing something? These other men did honorable deeds also, at some point, no doubt.

What are they being honored for?

General Lee fought to keep slavery alive.

George Washington fought for our freedom and the founding of this nation, as well as being our first president.

Seems there's more to him than just slavery, there's something honorable there.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

George Washington fought for our freedom and the founding of this nation, .

Sure, if you were not black!

 

[Master PO]

What are they being honored for?

General Lee fought to keep slavery alive.

George Washington fought for our freedom and the founding of this nation, as well as being our first president.

Seems there's more to him than just slavery, there's something honorable there.

did you know Washington asked to join the British regular military service, but he was refused.

if he had been accepted its very likely he would have never been the commander in chief

 

[slick]

Celebrating a defeated enemy is just ridicules. I am not saying erase them from history, that's not the point. When they seceded they became enemy combatants. As far as I know we don't have monuments celebrating the Englishman who died fighting in the revolutionary war. I am pretty certain we don't have monuments celebrating German or Japanese soldiers from WWII.

Just because we do not celebrate or put up monuments to glorify traitors to the US, does not mean we would forget the history.

We should not be celebrating enemy combatants.

That was some defeated army you mentioned. The army of Northern Virginia:
'It is an army of 70,000 men. It is an army of remarkable unity
fighting for disunion.It is Anglo-Saxon & protestant. Though many couldn't read nor write they all spoke English. They share commons customs
& a common faith & they have been consistantly victorious against superior numbers. They have as solid a faith in their leader
as any army that ever marched.

Take Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley, Robert E Lee at Chancellorsville & NBF at Brices Crossroads &
you have 3/4 of the Mt. Rushmore Generals ever born on US soil. Pick one of maybe 10 for the other spot all would be honored
to be memorialized with these 3. Memorializing the tactical genius & girth of being of men like these is justified & certainly not to be
ridiculed.

 

[Parrish]

Washington fought for the independence of "We the White people" not "We, all of the people."

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Washington fought for the independence of "We the White people" not "We, all of the people."

Great point Parrish and he owned slaves, I pointed this out and said the Washington monument should also go (not to mention being a giant phallus) I was met with "oh, but that's different"

 

[Parrish]

That was some defeated army you mentioned. The army of Northern Virginia:
'It is an army of 70,000 men. It is an army of remarkable unity
fighting for disunion.It is Anglo-Saxon & protestant. Though many couldn't read nor write they all spoke English. They share commons customs
& a common faith & they have been consistantly victorious against superior numbers. They have as solid a faith in their leader
as any army that ever marched.

Take Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley, Robert E Lee at Chancellorsville & NBF at Brices Crossroads &
you have 3/4 of the Mt. Rushmore Generals ever born on US soil. Pick one of maybe 10 for the other spot all would be honored
to be memorialized with these 3. Memorializing the tactical genius & girth of being of men like these is justified & certainly not to be
ridiculed.

Sorry. They fought to keep an entire race enslaved. There's NO honor in that. None. They lost. If they were tactical geniuses they would have defeated the North. The ridicule belongs to those who defend the South.

 

[slick]

What are they being honored for?

General Lee fought to keep slavery alive.

George Washington fought for our freedom and the founding of this nation, as well as being our first president.

Seems there's more to him than just slavery, there's something honorable there.

Robert E. Lee:
He has no vices, he does not drink or smoke or gamble or chase women. He does not own slaves nor believe in slavery.
He is a man in control. He does not lose his temper nor his faith; he never complains. He loves Virginia most of all, the mystic
dirt of home. He is the most beloved man in either army.

(there's something honorable there.)

 

[Parrish]

Robert E. Lee:
He has no vices, he does not drink or smoke or gamble or chase women. He does not own slaves nor believe in slavery.
He is a man in control. He does not lose his temper nor his faith; he never complains. He loves Virginia most of all, the mystic
dirt of home. He is the most beloved man in either army.

(there's something honorable there.)

...He thinks slaves, Black people, even black Virginians are property like dogs and are less than human.

You find that honorable? really?

 

[slick]

...He thinks slaves, Black people, even black Virginians are property like dogs and are less than human.

You find that honorable? really?

Of course Lee was an honorable man. BTW How can you call some leaders of the southern cause white nationalists who hurt black feelings?
Consider the statements of NBF who those like you consider the poster boy of white nationalists.

'When I entered the army I
took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them surrendered with me. I
told these boys that this war was about slavery, and if we lose, you will be made free. If we whip them
and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way you will be freed. These boys stayed
with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live”. They were protecting their
homeland.'

 

[Slingshot Bob]

...He thinks slaves, Black people, even black Virginians are property like dogs and are less than human.

You find that honorable? really?

So did Washington and many others, point?

 

[Parrish]

Of course Lee was an honorable man. BTW How can you call some leaders of the southern cause white nationalists who hurt black feelings?
Consider the statements of NBF who those like you consider the poster boy of white nationalists.

'When I entered the army I
took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them surrendered with me. I
told these boys that this war was about slavery, and if we lose, you will be made free. If we whip them
and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way you will be freed. These boys stayed
with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live”. They were protecting their
homeland.'

If you can't admit that slavery and the southern viewpoint on blacks was not evil or inhumane and then defend that evil practice then heaven protect your soul.

 

[slick]

If you can't admit that slavery and the southern viewpoint on blacks was not evil or inhumane and then defend that evil practice then heaven protect your soul.

Please stop with the silliness. Look at the other side of the coin!
If you look at the make up of Union troops, you can plainly see that blacks were
segre gated into separate units, while in the South, they were mixed in with the white
troops. They were also given the same pay and rations as other Confederate troops as
opposed to their counterparts in the North.

Although blacks were repressed in the South, the same was true in the North. Blacks
were probably discriminated against in New York City and Boston more than they were
in Charleston or Atlanta. Yes, they were ‘free’ in the North, but were still considered
second class citizens to many in the North. They still did not have the right to vote nor
were they allowed in the same establishments as whites. This may be why the majority of
blacks stayed in the South when the war started. They Fought for their homeland
against the ‘Yankees’. There were between 50,000 to 100,000 blacks that served in the
Confederate Army as cooks, blacksmiths, and yes, even soldiers.

Audey Murphy in WWII & Alvin York in WWI were the most decorated
soldiers of their respective wars! Everyone has acclaimed their daring-do.
Had they been unfortunate enough to be born born during the civil war era, you would be bashing
them too for fighting to 'retain slavery' after all
York & Forrest were both Tenneseans & Murphy I believe was Texan.

 

[Parrish]

Please stop with the silliness. Look at the other side of the coin!
If you look at the make up of Union troops, you can plainly see that blacks were
segre gated into separate units, while in the South, they were mixed in with the white
troops. They were also given the same pay and rations as other Confederate troops as
opposed to their counterparts in the North.

Although blacks were repressed in the South, the same was true in the North. Blacks
were probably discriminated against in New York City and Boston more than they were
in Charleston or Atlanta. Yes, they were ‘free’ in the North, but were still considered
second class citizens to many in the North. They still did not have the right to vote nor
were they allowed in the same establishments as whites. This may be why the majority of
blacks stayed in the South when the war started. They Fought for their homeland
against the ‘Yankees’. There were between 50,000 to 100,000 blacks that served in the
Confederate Army as cooks, blacksmiths, and yes, even soldiers.

Audey Murphy in WWII & Alvin York in WWI were the most decorated
soldiers of their respective wars! Everyone has acclaimed their daring-do.
Had they been unfortunate enough to be born born during the civil war era, you would be bashing
them too for fighting to 'retain slavery' after all
York & Forrest were both Tenneseans & Murphy I believe was Texan.

Sorry. Unlike you I won't defend anyone who defends or defended slavery, or modern day nativists who yearn for those days.

(Those blacks who "served" in the CSA army were slaves, btw.)

 

[chuckiechan]

So, this debate has gotten pretty heated recently, and the city of New Orleans has removed Confederate monuments. The construction crews have had to remove them in the middle of the night, with bulletproof vests, due to the fact that they are (unfortunately) receiving death threats from people. But I wonder what everyone else's take on this issue is? Should these Confederate monuments be removed?

Speaking towards my perspective on the issue, I don't really care either way; it's not of serious comcern to me if these monuments stay up or not. But I don't really think the monuments should be removed. Sure, they do glorify the Confederate generals & figures that lost 150+ years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of our history; it doesn't change what happened. Removing these monuments isn't going to change the past. The Confederacy is not going to "rise again" from keeping up these old monuments up. The Confederacy is deader than dead. I think these monuments are a good reminder of our ugly past, we shouldn't remove these monuments because of that.

So what is your perspective? Do you feel these monuments should stay, or to you think they should be taken down?

What are we going to do about George Washington? He was a slave owner. Are you going to scrub him from history, too?