Majority of Americans Support Confederate Statues Remaining in Place

[Tigerace117]

We should be arresting these hooligans for vandalism, destruction of public property, give them thirty days in jail and demand restitution. Some of this destruction is being done by groups in broad daylight. Where are the cops?

The cops have no interest in fighting to defend monuments to an evil ideology, and I can't say I blame them.

 

[Moderate Right]

See those brave men in that photo? They took on the Nazis. They're part of why we have freedom today. And the Neo-Nazis want to take that freedom away from most of us.

If you sympathize with the Neo-Nazis, then you are siding against freedom and justice. It is that simple.

We don't need vigilanties. That's what the antifa are. Vigilantyism is against the law. That's why the antifa are against the police and clash with the police. People who clash with police are the bad guys. If the Nazis clash with police then they are the bad guys but the police are there to protect the white supremacists right to free speech because it is the antifa who are causing the problems, not the Nazis.

 

[slick]

Against the wishes of 2/3 of the country, who want them to remain? Why do you feel entitled to violate the wishes of most Americans?

Posters like him probably looked at when the Harris Poll in 1965 revealed by 2 to 1 that the American people wanted
no immigration legal or illegal, but this didn't stop Ted Kennedy & LBJ from shoving the 'Immigration Act of 1965' down
our collective throats.

So because the wishes of the Americans were violated then, the MSM, Democratic Party & the Rino's certainly feel they can
work around the wishes of the people now. Apparently in this country the wishes of the people don't seem to matter much.

 

[Phys251]

We don't need vigilanties. That's what the antifa are. Vigilantyism is against the law.

Oh really? Then tell these guys to go home. Go ahead, do it and see how well it works out for you:

 

[slick]

Speaking of democracy. what if 2/3 the people of this country vote to bring back burning witches. Does the popular vote rule? I am sure glad we are not a democracy.

'Fox News host suggests opponents to Confederate memorials will want to take down 9/11 memorials too.
Kilmeade is comparing the monument to heroes of the worst terrorist attack on American soil to statues of
Confederate generals, soldiers and leaders who rebelled against the government of the United States.'

So the left wing is mocking Kilmeade for making such a suggestion while Kilmeade has a point. The looneys
are not just after the historic equestrian monuments of talented tacticians like Jackson & Forrest & leaders like Lee,
they are going overboard sighting non civil war historic figures like Columbus, Washington, Jefferson & Jackson who knows when
their thirst for destruction will end. 100 years later those of a like mind then will definitely find something they are bothered about
concerning the 9/11 monuments & demand their destruction, that is if there is a USA in 100 years, the way some are acting I
tend to doubt it!

In Maryland in 1862 their was only one city in the entire state of Maryland that
had a population greater than the death toll at the bloody Sharpsburg Battlefield in 1862.
22,000 were killed, wounded & missing. Only Baltimore had a population of over 9,500
at that time in that state. Those are astonishing figure comparisons. I'd say the monuments to all
Union & Confederates leaders stay where they are forever.. My guess is they will.

 

[Moderate Right]

Oh really? Then tell these guys to go home. Go ahead, do it and see how well it works out for you:

You cherry picking pictures doesn't prove one damn thing. This might as well be a picture of the antifa because it is what they do. They are the ones clashing with the police and getting arrested. Those who clash with police are the bad guys.

 

[Phys251]

You cherry picking pictures doesn't prove one damn thing. This might as well be a picture of the antifa because it is what they do. They are the ones clashing with the police and getting arrested. Those who clash with police are the bad guys.

Those are militiamen acting under nobody's authority but their own. It is a damn good thing they didn't kill anybody. But it is good to see that you see the danger that they pose acting like that.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The cops have no interest in fighting to defend monuments to an evil ideology, and I can't say I blame them.

The police do not decide what monuments they will protect. They do their job or they no longer have a job as far as I am concerned. I was in the army. You don't decide who you will fight, when or where. You do your job or you step down and let someone else do the job. The last person I want by my side in a battle is a person who does not follow orders.

 

[Tigerace117]

The police do not decide what monuments they will protect. They do their job or they no longer have a job as far as I am concerned. I was in the army. You don't decide who you will fight, when or where. You do your job or you step down and let someone else do the job. The last person I want by my side in a battle is a person who does not follow orders.

Only they aren't going into battle, they are dealing with a bunch of statues whose time is past.

 

[Moderate Right]

Those are militiamen acting under nobody's authority but their own. It is a damn good thing they didn't kill anybody. But it is good to see that you see the danger that they pose acting like that.

I'm just not doing the cherry picking game with you. If you don't believe I can cherry pick pictures of the antifa then there is no sense in debating with you. It is the antifa who are clashing with police and being arrested by the police. It is the Nazi's who need protection from the violent antifa. The anti-police are the bad guys but I do realize that many on the left choose to believe those who clash with the police and get arrested are actually the heros. Reminds me of the 60's when the hippies were clashing with the police because they believed in peace, love, and drugs. Anarchists only believe in anarchy. I don't know when the left is going to wake up to this fact.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Only they aren't going into battle, they are dealing with a bunch of statues whose time is past.

Police like the military don't decide. We the People decide and our representatives tell them what to dol. Either do your job or find a different job.

I agree all those old monuments need to go. We should start with the pyramids and pagan gods all over the world. Burn those books deny what happened. Unless it represents perfect people depicting a perfect world tear it down.

 

[Tigerace117]

Police like the military don't decide. We the People decide and our representatives tell them what to dol. Either do your job or find a different job.

I agree all those old monuments need to go. We should start with the pyramids and pagan gods all over the world. Burn those books deny what happened. Unless it represents perfect people depicting a perfect world tear it down.

But the police aren't the military. These are two different jobs, even though there is some overlap

There is zero need to worship people who not only weren't perfect, but actively fought for an evil cause. .

 

[JasperL]

Police like the military don't decide. We the People decide and our representatives tell them what to dol. Either do your job or find a different job.

I agree all those old monuments need to go. We should start with the pyramids and pagan gods all over the world. Burn those books deny what happened. Unless it represents perfect people depicting a perfect world tear it down.

Yeah, conflating burning books with taking down monuments is just an indication you're not interested in honest debate. They are not the same thing, not close to the same thing, and no one has argued to deny history or erase history or deny that anything happened.

It's a stupid argument for another reason, too. If history is told only by through a monument, then a monument to a white supremacist installed by white supremacists tells a distorted view of history and denies the history of blacks and others those oppressed by white supremacists for centuries in this country. So using your logic, by leaving up those monuments, you're "burning the books" that tell anyone's story except those of white supremacists! You're figuratively burning the history of Jim Crow, slave markets, beatings, lynchings, selling kids away from their parents, rapes.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Yeah, conflating burning books with taking down monuments is just an indication you're not interested in honest debate. They are not the same thing, not close to the same thing, and no one has argued to deny history or erase history or deny that anything happened.

It's a stupid argument for another reason, too. If history is told only by through a monument, then a monument to a white supremacist installed by white supremacists tells a distorted view of history and denies the history of blacks and others those oppressed by white supremacists for centuries in this country. So using your logic, by leaving up those monuments, you're "burning the books" that tell anyone's story except those of white supremacists! You're figuratively burning the history of Jim Crow, slave markets, beatings, lynchings, selling kids away from their parents, rapes.

Then put up monuments to the blacks. We didn't tear down Mt Rushmore but added Crazy Horse.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

There is zero need to worship people who not only weren't perfect, but actively fought for an evil cause. .

Like our founding fathers who fought not for our freedom but to be the rich and powerful who rule over the average people, enslave the black people, and decimated the American Indian while stealing their land.

 

[JasperL]

Then put up monuments to the blacks. We didn't tear down Mt Rushmore but added Crazy Horse.

Communities can do that. They can also take down monuments to white supremacists and Civil War heroes and replace them, or take them down and put up a tree, or nothing. Also fine. None of those options erases history or equates with book burning, which was your illogical argument.

 

[Tigerace117]

Like our founding fathers who fought not for our freedom but to be the rich and powerful who rule over the average people, enslave the black people, and decimated the American Indian while stealing their land.

The Confederacy definitely didn't fight for freedom bud, considering they want to war to continue owning slaves. You slandering the founding fathers is appreciated though.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Communities can do that. They can also take down monuments to white supremacists and Civil War heroes and replace them, or take them down and put up a tree, or nothing. Also fine. None of those options erases history or equates with book burning, which was your illogical argument.

Communities can and have banned books. Communities can and do remove historical land marks, monument, and history. That does not make it right.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The Confederacy definitely didn't fight for freedom bud, considering they want to war to continue owning slaves. You slandering the founding fathers is appreciated though.

Sorry fact not slander.
They did not treat all men equally but enslaved the black people. Fact.
They did not let women vote or treat them as equal. Fact.
They did not treat the native Americans as equal. Fact.
They did not even let all men vote just the wealthy who owned land. Fact.
They did not revolt and fight England to give the people mention above equal treatment and rights. Fact.
They fought England so they could rule this country instead of England. Fact.

 

[JasperL]

Communities can and have banned books. Communities can and do remove historical land marks, monument, and history. That does not make it right.

Taking down a monument is nothing like banning books or rewriting history. It's a stupid analogy. That monument tells at best some part of some story about a single individual in a much broader era that involves acts by millions of other individuals. Creating a monument to one person necessarily means that some other person or event is NOT honored and is an effort, by your telling, to only remember a tiny sliver of history, to the exclusion of all others who were important in that era, and all other events that were significant.

And of course the fact that communities do X unrelated to Y does not make doing Y "right." Doing Y doesn't make Y "right" in anyone's given opinion. But that's not an argument against doing Y. In this case, monuments go up and they come down. It's a normal part of history, completely ordinary throughout all of recorded history. And any given community has the same right to elect which people and events to honor in its public square as those who installed those monuments. There can be no expectation that monuments, most of them erected in the Jim Crow era by all white governments (because blacks had no effective right to vote or hold office) are or should be binding on all generations that follow. It's unreasonable.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Taking down a monument is nothing like banning books or rewriting history. It's a stupid analogy. That monument tells at best some part of some story about a single individual in a much broader era that involves acts by millions of other individuals. Creating a monument to one person necessarily means that some other person or event is NOT honored and is an effort, by your telling, to only remember a tiny sliver of history, to the exclusion of all others who were important in that era, and all other events that were significant.

And of course the fact that communities do X unrelated to Y does not make doing Y "right." Doing Y doesn't make Y "right" in anyone's given opinion. But that's not an argument against doing Y. In this case, monuments go up and they come down. It's a normal part of history, completely ordinary throughout all of recorded history. And any given community has the same right to elect which people and events to honor in its public square as those who installed those monuments. There can be no expectation that monuments, most of them erected in the Jim Crow era by all white governments (because blacks had no effective right to vote or hold office) are or should be binding on all generations that follow. It's unreasonable.

They are a part of history. I have driven through every state and stopped and read the plaques on 10's of thousands of monuments. Most represented something or some event that was not very nice. Very few had I ever studied in school. Most were small local events of the history of that area. A lot marked the spot of massacres and other horrible tragedies. The removal of these monuments is the removal of history. I can understand how people would be embarrassed by their ancestors evil ways that these monument show and represent. But removing the monuments does not undo the fact that it happened. It is only a way for those who are embarrassed to try and hide their shame.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sorry fact not slander.
They did not treat all men equally but enslaved the black people. Fact.
They did not let women vote or treat them as equal. Fact.
They did not treat the native Americans as equal. Fact.
They did not even let all men vote just the wealthy who owned land. Fact.
They did not revolt and fight England to give the people mention above equal treatment and rights. Fact.
They fought England so they could rule this country instead of England. Fact.

The Confederacy fought for slavery. Fact.

Supporters of the Confederacy desperately try to slander the founding fathers. Fact.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The Confederacy fought for slavery. Fact.

Supporters of the Confederacy desperately try to slander the founding fathers. Fact.

When did I say I supported the confederacy? I know more support the confederacy than I support the roman empire. But to destroy all their monuments and history because they did not support my views is pigheaded at best. The Mayan people supposedly did horrible things to the people they defeated in battle. Shall we destroy all the pyramids in Mexico? Just because I think those monuments shouldn't be torn down does not mean I support their beliefs and culture. I can appreciate the monuments and still be a decent person. It seems the people wanting to remove them cannot.

 

[Tigerace117]

When did I say I supported the confederacy? I know more support the confederacy than I support the roman empire. But to destroy all their monuments and history because they did not support my views is pigheaded at best. The Mayan people supposedly did horrible things to the people they defeated in battle. Shall we destroy all the pyramids in Mexico? Just because I think those monuments shouldn't be torn down does not mean I support their beliefs and culture. I can appreciate the monuments and still be a decent person. It seems the people wanting to remove them cannot.

Nobody is destroying history. We are removing monuments to murderers of American soldiers and sailors.

To fanatically support such people really is pigheaded.

 

[JasperL]

They are a part of history. I have driven through every state and stopped and read the plaques on 10's of thousands of monuments. Most represented something or some event that was not very nice. Very few had I ever studied in school. Most were small local events of the history of that area. A lot marked the spot of massacres and other horrible tragedies. The removal of these monuments is the removal of history. I can understand how people would be embarrassed by their ancestors evil ways that these monument show and represent. But removing the monuments does not undo the fact that it happened. It is only a way for those who are embarrassed to try and hide their shame.

Of course you just completely ignored my comments, but I'll address yours. Removing a monument does not remove "history." It removes a piece of metal and rock that glorifies generally ONE person from a single era. Your argument is, essentially, that once a monument is erected by some citizens in a given era (in this case white supremacists in the Jim Crow era), all subsequent generations are at least somehow morally obligated to respect and honor that decision by NEVER removing that monument. Where do you find that ethical obligation? That every community from now till eternity must honor the same sorry group of white supremacists those guys wanted to place on a pedestal?

To honor Robert E. Lee in that spot for perpetuity is a decision for perpetuity to NOT honor other great men and women. Why in the world do you think that's a reasonable burden to place on the CURRENT community that resides in that city and uses that public space?

You say current residents might be "embarrassed" by the evil ways of their ancestors. It's not the word I'd use, but I agree with the sentiment. So why in the world do you insist that a community must continue to place a statue in a place of honor on public property of someone who is now an "embarrassment" to the community? Why NOT take that one down and honor someone who in THIS era deserves the honor to occupy that special place in the community?

And "history" is just a copout argument. You know who/what else is "part of history?" Every single man or woman NOT honored in that spot? Frederick Douglass was a "part of history." Why not honor him instead of Lee? Etc.....