Trump and the cons want to bring back Confederate statues and the name of military bases

[Diving Mullah]

There is a fundamental difference between slave-owning figures like Thomas Jefferson and those like Andrew Jackson or General Robert E. Lee. Many American heroes and historical figures—regardless of any reprehensible actions, including genocide—are still considered "Americans" in that they ultimately represented and upheld the United States and its Constitution.

In contrast, figures such as Lee and Jackson were the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They sought to destroy it and replace it with the Confederate Constitution. Their primary goal was to secede from the Union and dissolve the very idea of America itself. For all practical purposes, the Confederacy was a completely different country: they had their own president, their own constitution, and wore distinct uniforms, typically gray instead of the Union’s blue.

Honoring the Confederates on American soil is akin to honoring enemies such as Nazis, Al-Qaeda, or Russian invaders; they cannot be considered "American" in the context of fighting against Union forces and the United States. Had they won, the United States as it stands today would no longer exist. That is the essential difference

I hope you all can see that.

Honoring General Lee holding the Virginia battle Flag is as un-American as it can be. the reason people do it is a slap at Northerners, aka Union Forces, and what they stood for, despite them winning the war. They belong to Musimum as a reminder of what not to be and a lesson on what happens to you when you rise against the United States!

Diving Mullah

So slavery is ok for some but damning for others! Just uphold the Constitution and one's slavery is forgiven ?

Again, the point is being missed. While the Civil War was certainly about slavery—the South rebelled because they wanted to continue the practice—the main point is that the South rebelled against the United States, and they lost. As Americans, we should not honor those who took up arms against our country, any more than we would honor the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group produced at home or abroad. Those who fought against the Union cannot be celebrated as American heroes—they were enemies of the nation


Diving Mullah

 

[ElChupacabra]

Then tell me with a straight face that the left isn't pushing for taxpayer paid for gender transitions for convicted criminals.

Man, talk about moving the goal posts out of the stadium.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, people that wage war against the direction of their country's government are NOT traitors.

Well it went a bit past that. You make it sound like it was some skirmish over "the direction of their country's government" rather than a secession from the country itself.

They were not considered traitors in Spain, in China, in Vietnam, in Britain or generally anywhere else. So let's get that out of the way.

Um, what?

Secondly, everybody is offended by something somewhere. ART in particular is going to be offensive to somebody especiallyif it's not abstract but representational. But be that as it may, it gets to stay. In NYC there's a statute of Floyd. Now given the fact that he punched or knifed his pregnant girlfriend, some might find his likeness offensive. BUT, it's art and this is free country so c'est la vie

Then perhaps the statues can be displayed in a Civil War art gallery.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Well it went a bit past that. You make it sound like it was some skirmish over "the direction of their country's government" rather than a secession from the country itself.


Um, what?


Then perhaps the statues can be displayed in a Civil War art gallery.

Or transferred to and displayed at a representative Civil War National Military Park. Much like Benedict Arnold's "Boot Monument" located at the Saratoga National Historical Park, New York.

Of course, as art it would no longer be public art which generates dialogue and, as in this thread, histrionic controversy. Unlike public art whose interpretation might change over time the historical context of the battlefield would likely limit itself to the subject's military accomplishments or failures.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Or transferred to and displayed at a representative Civil War National Military Park. Much like Benedict Arnold's "Boot Monument" located at the Saratoga National Historical Park, New York.

Of course, as art it would no longer be public art which generates dialogue and, as in this thread, histrionic controversy. Unlike public art whose interpretation might change over time the historical context of the battlefield would likely limit itself to the subject's military accomplishments or failures.

Sure.

 

[Logophile]

Well it went a bit past that. You make it sound like it was some skirmish over "the direction of their country's government" rather than a secession from the country itself.


Um, what?


Then perhaps the statues can be displayed in a Civil War art gallery.

Art at some point becomes heritage. Andy Warhol's work is now a part of US heritage. The monuments are the same. The reason why I mentioned Spain, Vietnam and so forth is because they all went through essentially civil wars. The losing factions weren't summarily dubbed "traitors." It's important that hyperbole doesn't become the purveyor of truth

 

[eohrnberger]

Okay, so the slave nation they created.

Again, per my previous post, this is inaccurate assertion.

This is what you've shifted the goal posts to now, yes, but if you recall, it was 'why the founding fathers should be venerated'.
Remember?
Or maybe you don't.


I'm not going to respond simply because you've assigned me a position which I've not taken.

Further, I asked AI about this question, and it responded with:

At the time of its founding, the United States was not a single entity but a collection of states, some of which were slave states where slavery was legal, while others were free states where it was prohibited. The institution of slavery was deeply entrenched, particularly in the southern states, and the U.S. Constitution included provisions that acknowledged and protected slavery, making it a significant issue in the nation's early history.​

So, no, the nation itself, as a whole, wasn't considered a slave state, but there were states within it which were.

Now that you got that important distinction out of your system, where exactly is your evidence they weren't a slave nation?

See above.

Just because you are emotionally driven to declare the US a slave nation, doesn't mean that it is correct, nor accurate.

 

[eohrnberger]

Man, talk about moving the goal posts out of the stadium.

Not at all.
It is a clear example of a extreme position which Dems, Libs, and Progs' have adopted and have supported, which was the point.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Art at some point becomes heritage. Andy Warhol's work is now a part of US heritage. The monuments are the same. The reason why I mentioned Spain, Vietnam and so forth is because they all went through essentially civil wars. The losing factions weren't summarily dubbed "traitors." It's important that hyperbole doesn't become the purveyor of truth

Some in Spain most certainly viewed Franco as a traitor, and we've had laws over the years to remove public artwork; back in the late 2000's and one just a few years ago if memory serves correctly. Public art is often to memorialize, so it's what people choose to memorialize. Civil wars are very divisive, and more often than not the victors do not memorialize those who fought against them because the reasons they fought remain divisive.

In the US the fight was over the ending of slavery, which makes it even odder to memorialize because people fought not over just a political position, but the continued enslavement of black slaves which is pretty barbaric. I'm not sure how that's a very different category than just political differences.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Not at all.
It is a clear example of a extreme position which Dems, Libs, and Progs' have adopted and have supported, which was the point.

Is that was that was?

 

[Logophile]

Some in Spain most certainly viewed Franco as a traitor, and we've had laws over the years to remove public artwork; back in the late 2000's and one just a few years ago if memory serves correctly. Public art is often to memorialize, so it's what people choose to memorialize. Civil wars are very divisive, and more often than not the victors do not memorialize those who fought against them because the reasons they fought remain divisive.

In the US the fight was over the ending of slavery, which makes it even odder to memorialize because people fought not over just a political position, but the continued enslavement of black slaves which is pretty barbaric. I'm not sure how that's a very different category than just political differences.

It wasnt just about slavery. Historians generally understand that. But it's immaterial. I want art a part of this society and publicly displayed. I'm not interested in malcontented mobs dictating the terms of displayed art any more than I am having them tyrannize average Americans in order to dictate the terms of their lives. I just hope we're not on the way toward another civil war

 

[ElChupacabra]

It wasnt just about slavery. Historians generally understand that.

Sure, but the main driver was slavery itself. One can argue about whether some were pro slavery only because of the economics vs. those who also believed in the institution ideologically, but all roads lead back to slavery.

But it's immaterial. I want art a part of this society and publicly displayed. I'm not interested in malcontented mobs dictating the terms of displayed art any more than I am having them tyrannize average Americans in order to dictate the terms of their lives. I just hope we're not on the way toward another civil war.

Except this back and forth is what's part of living in a society, since not everyone shares the same views about everything. I'm sure if someone erected a statue of Himmler outside of a synagogue there would be pushback.

 

[Logophile]

Sure, but the main driver was slavery itself. One can argue about whether some were pro slavery only because of the economics vs. those who also believed in the institution ideologically, but all roads lead back to slavery.


Except this back and forth is what's part of living in a society, since not everyone shares the same views about everything. I'm sure if someone erected a statue of Himmler outside of a synagogue there would be pushback.

Well, nobody's done that and Himmler wasn't a US citizen, so that's just kinda off the wall

 

[Master Debator]

Again, per my previous post, this is inaccurate assertion.



See above.

Just because you are emotionally driven to declare the US a slave nation, doesn't mean that it is correct, nor accurate.

Do you mind telling us what question you asked so we can try and get the same results?

When I ask Google (which is funny by the way, you shouldn't be admitting that you need A.I. to form your thoughts for you.... .... nevertheless...) when I ask Google if America was a slave state at its founding this is the answer I get:

Yes, America was a slaveholding nation at its founding, with slavery protected by law in all 13 colonies and later enshrined in the U.S. Constitution through provisions like the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause. Although some Northern states began to phase out slavery after the Revolution, the institution remained legal and expanded in the Southern states, eventually becoming the central cause of the American Civil War and lasting until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

That Northern states outlawed slavery (with caveats) in their own territories doesn't mean they didn't profit off the institution. Being in league with slavers makes you a slaver too.

 

[Felis Leo]

What's the difficulty? Maybe I look at Lincoln and see someone who should have heeded the copperheads rather than plunge the land into butchery and mayhem. Or look at Grant and see someone who abided Sherman's war crimes.

Maybe I'm a Black guy who looks up at your Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues and use them to tell my children the tragedy of misbegotten allegiance to state over country and the harsh barbarity of slavery.

Yeah, because that is what those statues of men with proud military bearing in heroic pose often on the back of a noble steed and maintained at public expense convey. The abstract idea of how slavery is wrong. They certainly do not convey heroism.

But for those who might not understand the historical context or who are under the truly mistaken impression that these statues were erected to celebrate the Confederacy and fighting to maintain the institution of slavery...do the Confederate statues in your neck of the woods come with a historian with a loudspeaker paid to make regular public announcements to inform people passing by what utter pieces of shit the Confederate leaders whose hagiographic likenesses their statues portray and the cause they fought for were?

 

[Along Came Jones]

Yeah, because that is what those statues of men with proud military bearing in heroic pose often on the back of a noble steed and maintained at public expense convey. The abstract idea of how slavery is wrong. They certainly do not convey heroism.

But for those who might not understand the historical context or who are under the truly mistaken impression that these statues were erected to celebrate the Confederacy and fighting to maintain the institution of slavery...do the Confederate statues in your neck of the woods come with a historian with a loudspeaker paid to make regular public announcements to inform people passing by what utter pieces of shit the Confederate leaders whose hagiographic likenesses their statues portray and the cause they fought for were?

Confederate statues in my neck of the woods do not come with a historian with a loudspeaker paid to make regular public announcements to inform people passing what the legacy of the Confederacy represents in 2025. There are no Confederate statues left. The representation of a Confederate soldier erected in 1900--the only significant sculpture of which I'm aware--was removed in 2017.

Before the removal there was quite a brush up for and against the removal. One of the things I love about this city is even in the midst of our most heated internal squabbles there are groups proposing alternatives to the extremes. In this battle over the Confederate soldier the compromisers lost the debate.

Instead of tearing the statue down or leaving it untouched, Councilmember Roberto Treviño has proposed a third option: keep the monument in place but give it some neighbors – plaques commemorating civil rights leaders.

"The most important treasure we have in San Antonio is our history, good or bad," Treviño, an architect, told the Current. "When there were calls to remove the monument ... I realized that while it doesn't represent a good part of our history, it is part of our history. I thought maybe there was another way."

A less confrontational, more inclusive way.

"My thought is rather than remove history from that park, provide more context," Treviño said.

A rendition (included with the article) would look like this:

What Will San Antonio Do With Its Travis Park Confederate Statue? Michael Marks, San Antonio Current, 9/1/2015

 

[Master Debator]

Confederate statues in my neck of the woods do not come with a historian with a loudspeaker paid to make regular public announcements to inform people passing what the legacy of the Confederacy represents in 2025. There are no Confederate statues left. The representation of a Confederate soldier erected in 1900--the only significant sculpture of which I'm aware--was removed in 2017.

Before the removal there was quite a brush up for and against the removal. One of the things I love about this city is even in the midst of our most heated internal squabbles there are groups proposing alternatives to the extremes. In this battle over the Confederate soldier the compromisers lost the debate.

Instead of tearing the statue down or leaving it untouched, Councilmember Roberto Treviño has proposed a third option: keep the monument in place but give it some neighbors – plaques commemorating civil rights leaders.

"The most important treasure we have in San Antonio is our history, good or bad," Treviño, an architect, told the Current. "When there were calls to remove the monument ... I realized that while it doesn't represent a good part of our history, it is part of our history. I thought maybe there was another way."

A less confrontational, more inclusive way.

"My thought is rather than remove history from that park, provide more context," Treviño said.

A rendition (included with the article) would look like this:
View attachment 67586634
What Will San Antonio Do With Its Travis Park Confederate Statue? Michael Marks, San Antonio Current, 9/1/2015

I like what they did with the Lee statue from Monument Ave. They melted it down and gave it to black artists to make something new out of.

 

[Felis Leo]

Confederate statues in my neck of the woods do not come with a historian with a loudspeaker paid to make regular public announcements to inform people passing what the legacy of the Confederacy represents in 2025. There are no Confederate statues left. The representation of a Confederate soldier erected in 1900--the only significant sculpture of which I'm aware--was removed in 2017.

Before the removal there was quite a brush up for and against the removal. One of the things I love about this city is even in the midst of our most heated internal squabbles there are groups proposing alternatives to the extremes. In this battle over the Confederate soldier the compromisers lost the debate.

Instead of tearing the statue down or leaving it untouched, Councilmember Roberto Treviño has proposed a third option: keep the monument in place but give it some neighbors – plaques commemorating civil rights leaders.

"The most important treasure we have in San Antonio is our history, good or bad," Treviño, an architect, told the Current. "When there were calls to remove the monument ... I realized that while it doesn't represent a good part of our history, it is part of our history. I thought maybe there was another way."

A less confrontational, more inclusive way.

"My thought is rather than remove history from that park, provide more context," Treviño said.

A rendition (included with the article) would look like this:
View attachment 67586634
What Will San Antonio Do With Its Travis Park Confederate Statue? Michael Marks, San Antonio Current, 9/1/2015

I’m sorry, but that is an extremely unsightly landmark, both the statue and its additions. Do you think this looks good? Does this fill you with any sense of pride? This cheap imitation of Lord Nelson’s Column at Trafalgar Square? Why not just replace it with something that looks good and does not celebrate slavery and treason along with a bunch of warning signs talking about how the monument was erected by a bunch of horrible racist busybodies?

 

[Michael Cole]

Confederate statues in my neck of the woods do not come with a historian with a loudspeaker paid to make regular public announcements to inform people passing what the legacy of the Confederacy represents in 2025. There are no Confederate statues left. The representation of a Confederate soldier erected in 1900--the only significant sculpture of which I'm aware--was removed in 2017.

Before the removal there was quite a brush up for and against the removal. One of the things I love about this city is even in the midst of our most heated internal squabbles there are groups proposing alternatives to the extremes. In this battle over the Confederate soldier the compromisers lost the debate.

Instead of tearing the statue down or leaving it untouched, Councilmember Roberto Treviño has proposed a third option: keep the monument in place but give it some neighbors – plaques commemorating civil rights leaders.

"The most important treasure we have in San Antonio is our history, good or bad," Treviño, an architect, told the Current. "When there were calls to remove the monument ... I realized that while it doesn't represent a good part of our history, it is part of our history. I thought maybe there was another way."

A less confrontational, more inclusive way.

"My thought is rather than remove history from that park, provide more context," Treviño said.

A rendition (included with the article) would look like this:
View attachment 67586634
What Will San Antonio Do With Its Travis Park Confederate Statue? Michael Marks, San Antonio Current, 9/1/2015

I agree with @Felis Leo. Ugly.

What I like about this city is tolerance. It was fairly racist at one time, but is now highly diverse. It's always been accepting...of things others think are extreme. Quickie divorce, gambling (no longer extreme), legal prostitution, 24 hour drinking, culture from Burning Man to the Reno Rodeo and everything in between.

The North Valleys suburb of Black Springs was once all black. The name of the town is coincidental.

Black Springs residents remember a once thriving all-black Reno town

Thirteen years ago, Helen Townsell-Parker stumbled into an old shed in her grandparent's backyard. It was there she found hundreds of documents that unlocked the history of Black Springs. Black Springs was a small, but mighty, neighborhood nestled in North Valleys -- just six miles from...

mynews4.com

Lacking infrastructure until the mid-20th century, the town thrived. Blacks had difficulty buying homes in Reno and Sparks, and settled in Black Springs. It's basically unrecognizable now and the name has been changed to Grand View Terrace. There was so little uproar over the name change, that I found out about after it had occurred.

The closest thing in this state to the Confederacy is the Runnin' Rebel mascot for UNLV sports teams. People were vocal about the Hey Reb statue, and the university removed it. But nothing when Black Springs was changed to Grand View Terrace.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with anything confederate. I do enjoy visiting the state museum and mint in Carson. Placards in front of the displayed coin stamping presses explain how the state of Nevada financed the Union with silver from the Comstock Lode.

That's history. Confederate monuments really are not.

 

[Along Came Jones]

I’m sorry, but that is an extremely unsightly landmark, both the statue and its additions. Do you think this looks good? Does this fill you with any sense of pride? This cheap imitation of Lord Nelson’s Column at Trafalgar Square? Why not just replace it with something that looks good and does not celebrate slavery and treason along with a bunch of warning signs talking about how the monument was erected by a bunch of horrible racist busybodies?

Since the statue was removed ten years ago it no longer matters what anyone thinks about its aesthetics. As public art the issue was not about its beauty of design and presentation, anyway.

As for me, to the extent it mattered at the time, I sided with then Councilmember Roberto Treviño's point of view. Now there is nothing to squabble about. The statue no longer inspires truth-telling about what it represented or did not represent. The faultfinders eliminated the object of their scorn.

 

[Along Came Jones]

I agree with @Felis Leo. Ugly.

What I like about this city is tolerance. It was fairly racist at one time, but is now highly diverse. It's always been accepting...of things others think are extreme. Quickie divorce, gambling (no longer extreme), legal prostitution, 24 hour drinking, culture from Burning Man to the Reno Rodeo and everything in between.

The North Valleys suburb of Black Springs was once all black. The name of the town is coincidental.

Black Springs residents remember a once thriving all-black Reno town

Thirteen years ago, Helen Townsell-Parker stumbled into an old shed in her grandparent's backyard. It was there she found hundreds of documents that unlocked the history of Black Springs. Black Springs was a small, but mighty, neighborhood nestled in North Valleys -- just six miles from...

mynews4.com

Lacking infrastructure until the mid-20th century, the town thrived. Blacks had difficulty buying homes in Reno and Sparks, and settled in Black Springs. It's basically unrecognizable now and the name has been changed to Grand View Terrace. There was so little uproar over the name change, that I found out about after it had occurred.

The closest thing in this state to the Confederacy is the Runnin' Rebel mascot for UNLV sports teams. People were vocal about the Hey Reb statue, and the university removed it. But nothing when Black Springs was changed to Grand View Terrace.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with anything confederate. I do enjoy visiting the state museum and mint in Carson. Placards in front of the displayed coin stamping presses explain how the state of Nevada financed the Union with silver from the Comstock Lode.

That's history. Confederate monuments really are not.

That was a rather good retrospective on how a city's historical characteristics might change over time.

 

[slick]

Imagine Black people walking by a statue of Robert E. Lee. Go ahead, imagine if you're Black and there's a big fancy statue of Bobby Lee on a beautiful horse, in his fine uniform, raised on a platform high over you.

If a statue of Lincoln is meant to honor Lincoln, how is a statue of Lee not meant to honor Lee? If a statue of Grant is meant to honor Grant, how is a statue of Stonewall Jackson not meant to honor Stonewall Jackson? Benedict Arnold is part of our history. We remember him without any statues. Lee, and Jackson are much more evil and damaging traitors than Benedict Arnold was.

Must be great to be white in America. Statues of people who fought for slavery aren't racist. Wow. Just....

The polling
gives reason for skepticism. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll in 2018 found that 62 percent of respondents thought
statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should “remain as a historical symbol.” Only 27 percent of those polled wanted
the statues removed. It is noteworthy that, by 44 percent to 40 percent, African Americans did not support removing Confederate statues.'

In a free society, censorship and the sandblasting of history carries a price. The slope between caring for the feelings and
sensibilities of some and enshrining a form of cultural authoritarianism is both slippery and sloping steeply downward.'

 

[Loulit01]

The polling
gives reason for skepticism. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll in 2018 found that 62 percent of respondents thought
statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should “remain as a historical symbol.” Only 27 percent of those polled wanted
the statues removed. It is noteworthy that, by 44 percent to 40 percent, African Americans did not support removing Confederate statues.'

In a free society, censorship and the sandblasting of history carries a price. The slope between caring for the feelings and
sensibilities of some and enshrining a form of cultural authoritarianism is both slippery and sloping steeply downward.'

7 years ago. And we should do the right thing regardless of polling, no?

 

[slick]

7 years ago. And we should do the right thing regardless of polling, no?

That's your opinion & not a particularly clever one.
Also these giants deserve the honors that have come their way

Mt. Rushmore of military leaders born on southern American soil & the battles that put them there:
1) MacArthur at Inchon
2) Lee at Chancellorsville
3) Forrest at Brices Crossroads
4) Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley