• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There should remain a statue of Robert E. Lee

RaleBulgarian said:
Understanding the point you’re attempting to make, there was no period free from intimidation of blacks in the South before, during, or after the Civil War. Segregation and denial of rights was the norm.

Everyone involved from conception to unveiling of the Lee monument had direct ties with the defeated Confederacy.

Following it’s dedication, Lee’s monument became a centerpiece of the wealthy, whites only, subdivision that was built around it.

Fitting.
Click to expand...
When Lee died in 1870 there were immediate plans for a statue to commemorate his memory. Unfortunately, it took 20 years of wrangling over the design and by then the state had taken over the project. The building of the intimidation statuary didn't begin until about 1900. It reached a peak in about 1910. This particular statue is not of that era. The triumphalism found in the people and horses in those statues is not found in either Lee's face or the horses demeanor.

My concern is 3 fold. If we get rid of all references, in books, in art, in education, in history to the things we did that were wrong as a country, as a people, as a government we are in danger of thinking we can do not wrong and all our actions are acceptable. Theocracies are created out of this kind of thinking. Good art no matter what it depicts should not be destroyed. When we are uncomfortable with something in our past it needs to be discussed, the source of the discomfort identified and worked out together so we all understand the past in a similar way. Quickly, tearing down a statue doesn't solve the problem of our underlying racism.
 

Attachments

  • blog_confederate_monuments4.gif
    blog_confederate_monuments4.gif
    55.2 KB · Views: 1
Buckeyes85 said:
Well then, in theory the heirs to whomever granted the land have legal recourse against the city/township etc. I don't know that any of them are complaining about it, but presumably could make a claim.
Click to expand...
They did. You should probably read the court opinion in the OP.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
The bottom line is the state or city, I don't remember which owns the land.
They apparently have violated the terms of the transfer but unless or until someone who claims to have an interest in the land pursues the matter, it is moot.
Click to expand...
The Virginia State Supreme Court ruled that the state, at the time the agreement was written, acted beyond it’s authority by obligating the state in perpetuity.

The sole heir of those involved in the agreement that came forward, William Gregory, was found to have no standing, and his suit was dismissed with prejudice.
 
reflechissez said:
After initially posting that they didn't ask for the land back, then denying that you did that, you are now adding the bolded phrase.
Click to expand...
I didn't deny anything of the sort. I denied claiming they didn't WANT the land back. I didn't make such a claim because I don't know whether they want it back or not. I only claimed that the lawsuit didn't ask for the land to be returned, but only for the contract to be enforced. Absent the contract being enforced, I have no idea if they want the land back or not. There's no indication either way.

So I don't know what your problem is.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
They did. You should probably read the court opinion in the OP.
Click to expand...
Oops, sorry I missed that.

Though they did not in fact seek relief as to the return of the land- which is the premise of this thread. They sought to enjoin the governor from having the statue removed based upon the agreement by which the state apparently accepted the land.
Related issues no doubt, but not the same thing.
 
weaver2 said:
When Lee died in 1870 there were immediate plans for a statue to commemorate his memory. Unfortunately, it took 20 years of wrangling over the design and by then the state had taken over the project. The building of the intimidation statuary didn't begin until about 1900. It reached a peak in about 1910. This particular statue is not of that era. The triumphalism found in the people and horses in those statues is not found in either Lee's face or the horses demeanor.

My concern is 3 fold. If we get rid of all references, in books, in art, in education, in history to the things we did that were wrong as a country, as a people, as a government we are in danger of thinking we can do not wrong and all our actions are acceptable. Theocracies are created out of this kind of thinking. Good art no matter what it depicts should not be destroyed. When we are uncomfortable with something in our past it needs to be discussed, the source of the discomfort identified and worked out together so we all understand the past in a similar way. Quickly, tearing down a statue doesn't solve the problem of our underlying racism.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of the history, including the fact that Lee, himself, said that he did not want any Confederate statue/memorial.

The expression on Lee’s face is utterly irrelevant. As is his “horses demeanor”.

Removing the statue of Lee has zero effect on history. None. The only historic relevance to the statue is of it’s construction and it’s removal.

And your backup argument of “art” fails too. The monument was never intended as art. If art lovers are interested enough, they can reach out to the state requesting to purchase it or take, on loan, to present in a art gallery.

Taking down the monument was the right thing to do that should’ve happened long ago.

Only the ignorant and the bigoted argue otherwise.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Oops, sorry I missed that.

Though they did not in fact seek relief as to the return of the land- which is the premise of this thread. They sought to enjoin the governor from having the statue removed based upon the agreement by which the state apparently accepted the land.
Related issues no doubt, but not the same thing.
Click to expand...
The premise of the thread is as I wrote it: there should remain a statue of Robert E. Lee.

Failing that, the land should be returned as the Commonwealth is now in breach of contract.
 
Big Steve said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. It's just that I saw that your Political leaning is listed as Libertarian Right, so I was surprised.

In another thread, I heard from several right-libertarians that the government giving back the wealth it stole from slaves to the heirs of those slaves' estates would be ridiculous, since none of the slaves whose wealth was stolen are alive any longer.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I’m well aware of the history, including the fact that Lee, himself, said that he did not want any Confederate statue/memorial.

The expression on Lee’s face is utterly irrelevant. As is his “horses demeanor”.

Removing the statue of Lee has zero effect on history. None. The only historic relevance to the statue is of it’s construction and it’s removal.

And your backup argument of “art” fails too. The monument was never intended as art. If art lovers are interested enough, they can reach out to the state requesting to purchase it or take, on loan, to present in a art gallery.

Taking down the monument was the right thing to do that should’ve happened long ago.

Only the ignorant and the bigoted argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
I believe that most of those statues were appropriately removed. Unfortunately popular movements create their own motion forward and often bulldozes some things that should not have been destroyed. The Richmond statue may have been one of those things.
 
weaver2 said:
I believe that most of those statues were appropriately removed. Unfortunately popular movements create their own motion forward and often bulldozes some things that should not have been destroyed. The Richmond statue may have been one of those things.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The premise of the thread is as I wrote it: there should remain a statue of Robert E. Lee.

Failing that, the land should be returned as the Commonwealth is now in breach of contract.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that. But when a party is in breach of contract, the recourse is from the adverse party to seek a remedy. I do appreciate the Lee descendants filed suit to enjoin the removal of the statue but when that failed, they don't just automatically get some alternative relief that they did not seek.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Yes, I understand that. But when a party is in breach of contract, the recourse is from the adverse party to seek a remedy. I do appreciate the Lee descendants filed suit to enjoin the removal of the statue but when that failed, they don't just automatically get some alternative relief that they did not seek.
Click to expand...
They may have just assumed a contract is a contract, and the Commonwealth would be held to it by a reasonable court. A reasonable assumption, one might think.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
They may have just assumed a contract is a contract, and the Commonwealth would be held to it by a reasonable court. A reasonable assumption, one might think.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with what Buckeyes85 said.
 
reflechissez said:
That has nothing to do with what Buckeyes85 said.
Click to expand...
It suggests a reason they didn't ask for the land to be returned. It's plausible. I also thought it was a pretty obvious implication of my post.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
It suggests a reason they didn't ask for the land to be returned. It's plausible. I also thought it was a pretty obvious implication of my post.
Click to expand...
It's time for you to stop nursing your thread.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Yes, I understand that. But when a party is in breach of contract, the recourse is from the adverse party to seek a remedy. I do appreciate the Lee descendants filed suit to enjoin the removal of the statue but when that failed, they don't just automatically get some alternative relief that they did not seek.
Click to expand...
The Ditchley Lees had no objection to the removal and the same for most of the Society of the Lees.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Then stop posting in it.
Click to expand...
You're talking to people who laugh about children being orphaned by Covid. I doubt you'll find anyone who's willing to give you a straight discussion here in the first place.

As for me, I believe if you sign a contract/agreement, then you should abide by it. It's the principle of the matter and if the government is able to just flippantly disregard their own responsibility. What are you really supposed to expect from them in general, especially when it comes to keeping their word. It only shows that the government is far more than willing to screw you over when they know they can and if people just let them do it. They will just continue to do as they please.

It just sets a bad precedence in general.
 
Chief Seattle's statue still stands in Seattle. He wiped out entire tribes and killed his way to the top. If you were lucky enough to survive his wrath, he made you a slave. The people in one of the most liberal cities in America worship this slave owner but it is always liberals who tell Southerners their statues have to come down. Why do you liberals seem to value the lives of Blacks over Indigenous people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom