Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[swabian]

From speeches made in 1858. I backed up my statement with academic sources

Where again?

[IronBrig4]

Post 242.

[The spartan]

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
http://www.nytimes.com/1860/12/28/ne...pagewanted=all

As ironbrig is alluding to: you are cherry picking (again) a quote without its context (where,when,why) in hopes of projecting your own characterization of Lincoln. He was at a debate seeking election to the senate in the now famous Lincoln-Douglas debate, fyi, not writing his memoirs. See, this is why posting little snippits of information as a standalone is so suspect and open to abuse, you can characterize someone however you personally want.

On an unrelated note, here is a video of President Trump expressing his profound gratitude and admiration for his good friend Hillary Clinton.

Russia has statues to Red Army soldiers under Stalin, Germany has statues to both WW1 and WW2 soldiers.

Yeah, nameless soldiers who are part of war memorials. We have lots of those of confederate soldiers here in the US, and they aren't talked about often in political discourse. We were talking about having statues of the leaders of the movements/political organization.

I posted this quote in support of the fact that Lincoln viewed abolition of slavery as a mean to an end, which you and ironbrig tried to argue against, since neither of you bothered to do basic research before making factually unsubstantial claims. I posted a New York Times article form 1860 in regards to Lincoln's views on race.

I don't think I ever argued against such a thing, I was giving what is known about Lincolns views on slavery and how to do away with it (the whole long term strategy vs War perspective I mentioned pages ago). But from the way this conversation is going, I have very little doubt that I know far more about the events of the Civil War than yourself, though still far less than professional historians who spend years researching this. You truly believe you blew them all out of the water with your google search, don't you?

[Heathen Hammer]

As ironbrig is alluding to: you are cherry picking (again) a quote without its context (where,when,why) in hopes of projecting your own characterization of Lincoln. He was at a debate seeking election to the senate in the now famous Lincoln-Douglas debate, fyi, not writing his memoirs. See, this is why posting little snippits of information as a standalone is so suspect and open to abuse, you can characterize someone however you personally want.

It wasn't a little snippit, it was part of the letter he wrote, explaining his beliefs on the subject.

On an unrelated note, here is a video of President Trump expressing his profound gratitude and admiration for his good friend Hillary Clinton.

Yep, quite unrelated.

Yeah, nameless soldiers who are part of war memorials. We have lots of those of confederate soldiers here in the US, and they aren't talked about often in political discourse. We were talking about having statues of the leaders of the movements/political organization.

So? Plenty of kings, counts, emperors, etc. in world's history did bad things, nobody except for someone mad would want to destroy their statues. Robert E. Lee was not considered to be a bad figure even by his opponents. Then again, people who support removal of his statue aren't interested in historical facts.

I don't think I ever argued against such a thing, I was giving what is known about Lincolns views on slavery and how to do away with it (the whole long term strategy vs War perspective I mentioned pages ago). But from the way this conversation is going, I have very little doubt that I know far more about the events of the Civil War than yourself, though still far less than professional historians who spend years researching this. You truly believe you blew them all out of the water with your google search, don't you?

You kinda demonstrated the opposite by you lack of knowledge on the subject that you expressed by making your initial claim. Perhaps if you bothered to make a google search of your own, that would have been less embarrassing for you.

[The spartan]

It wasn't a little snippit, it was part of the letter he wrote, explaining his beliefs on the subject.

It wasn't a letter, it was a record of his debate with Douglas in Illinois. It IS a snippet of the debate at large; you aren't providing the statement Douglas made before Lincoln said this or Douglas's statement after, or any other part of the debate. The fact you are missing this is problematic.

Yep, quite unrelated.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

See how easy it is for me to make it seem like Trump admires Clinton by eliminating the context and just providing a limited quote?

So? Plenty of kings, counts, emperors, etc. in world's history did bad things, nobody except for someone mad would want to destroy their statues. Robert E. Lee was not considered to be a bad figure even by his opponents.

On what to do with statues is a very common issue for counties around the world. Scotland and England, not to mention Ireland and England, have this issue all the time (such as with monuments, portraits, etc of Cromwell); people who have been brutally oppressed often don't like to have reminders of that fact staring them in the face. I visited India not that long ago, and there is still angst over reminders of British colonialism.

Then again, people who support removal of his statue aren't interested in historical facts.

Don't pretend to be on the side of history when you don't even know the history you are talking about.

You kinda demonstrated the opposite by you lack of knowledge on the subject that you expressed by making your initial claim. Perhaps if you bothered to make a google search of your own, that would have been less embarrassing for you.

Hm, quite and accusation with no attempt to back it up, so essentially a bark with no bite. If you would actually care to discuss the intricacies of Lee's Gettysburg campaign, Sherman's march to the sea, or the United Kingdom's economic relationship to the Confederacy, I would certainly want to go toe to toe with you.

[chilon]

full episode is worth watching

[IronBrig4]

And this piece by Eric Foner also sheds light on the South's selective amnesia. Foner is one of the experts on the subject.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/o...n-history.html

As all historians know, forgetting is as essential to public understandings of history as remembering. Confederate statues do not simply commemorate “our” history, as the president declared. They honor one part of our past. Where are the statues in the former slave states honoring the very large part of the Southern population (beginning with the four million slaves) that sided with the Union rather than the Confederacy? Where are the monuments to the victims of slavery or to the hundreds of black lawmakers who during Reconstruction served in positions ranging from United States senator to justice of the peace to school board official? Excluding blacks from historical recognition has been the other side of the coin of glorifying the Confederacy.

[Elfdude]

If someone can't understand that a bunch of statues created at the height of the KKK power and as a middle finger to the civil rights movement by institutions directly advocating for the Lost Cause mythos surrounding the civil war are racist they they clearly have issues with their mental capacity.

[Frostwulf]

If you're talking about settlers in the Great Plains, a lot of them were far from innocent. They're the ones who squatted on Indian land, killed off most of the bison, and murdered Indians in internecine squabbles. But that might be a topic more fit for the VV.


Again, I don't ignore the violence committed but I recognize it as standard for Victorian Era warfare between indigenous peoples and imperialist powers. That warfare was based on absolute destruction and similar conflicts flared up in Algeria, German South-west Africa, South Africa, French Indochina, the Philippines, and the Sudan.

Ahh so that makes it ok to murder, rape, mutilate etc.(many of them innocent) and of course to idolize people like that with statues. Why do you make excuses for their bad behavior? I'll tell you what, Ill do the same thing on the 2 next quotes below.

Statues to Indian chiefs are just historical artifacts and are not necessarily a symbol of approval.

Of course, they are merely chunks of stone that doesn’t have any meaning, just like the confederate statues, you know just historical.

Statues to Confederate leaders are part of a deliberate attempt by Lost Causers to whitewash the Civil War, and that attempt is ongoing.

And to honor their heritage and those that tried to protect the states of their residence or birth.

You must realize that when these statues were coming up, white Southerners had killed Reconstruction and were gleefully "redeeming" the South by disenfranchising local blacks, kicking black and Republican legislators out of office, and engaging in wholesale terror against black populations. Even my college town had a few lynchings during this time period. The odd white person who spoke out against it was likely to face a lynch mob as well. The monuments were a reflection of all of this pathological obsession with the Antebellum social order, and the second spike in monument construction happened when white Southerners (the usual suspects) resisted desegregation and engaged in more terrorism.

And once again you have Taney, Calhoun, Richard Stockton, James Stephen Hogg, and etc which shows that what your writing has nothing to do with it. This is about honoring men (statues) that today’s values don’t support. Such things as slavery, and I would put also murder, rape, mutilation etc.

I can back up my statement with the AHA. I even gave you a book title that you can data mine for primary sources since you clearly don't respect the work that historians do. No, I'm not going to do it for you because you're the one who thinks he knows better than trained, qualified historians.

I didn’t say that I don’t respect their work, nor did I say I disagreed with it(try not to put words in my mouth, it would be easy for me to do the same to you). My problem is that I’m not an ostrich and stick my head in the ground and say “gee they said so, so it must be true”. I to have studied history and prefer not to take the word of someone but to see the research, I would like to think all people would consider such things.

Edit: Okay, I'll throw you a bone. http://hgreen.people.ua.edu/transcri...rr-speech.html

Thank you for putting down a source like this:

Let us be grateful that our struggle, keeping alive the grand principle of local self-government and State sovereignty has thus far held the American people from that consolidated despotism whose name, whether Republic or Empire, is of but little importance as compared with its rule.

This does in my opinion leads me to believe that this is part of the “lost cause” belief. But the rest of it is of little significance, because the lost cause is not the reason for the removal, it is as I explained above-all about slavery not confederacy. This speech was venerating these men for the Southern honor and the way they looked at things. Even though this guy(despicable as far as I'm concerned) talked of his own vile behavior it had nothing to do with what the statues were about: " I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal.". The statues were for this reason: "The duty due to our dear Southland, and the conspicuous service rendered, did not end at Appomatox[sic]. The four years immediately following the four years of bloody carnage, brought their responsibilities hardly of less consequence than those for which the South laid upon the altar of her country 74,524 of her brave and loyal sons dead from disease, a grand total of 133,821.". This is about the people who fought/died for the South and yes the "lost cause". This speech was to honor the dead of the South as simple as that. The statues may have the "lost cause" but so what, people believe all kinds of "myths". The statues were not built to "gleefully "redeeming" the South by disenfranchising local blacks, kicking black and Republican legislators out of office, and engaging in wholesale terror against black populations." These statues were built to honor the Southern people who died or defended the South not at all what your going on about.

Conclusion: This is not about the "lost cause" or people who look to it. This is simply about eliminating statues which honors men who don't hold to today's moral standard. This is why Calhoun, Stockton, Taney, etc. were removed, they have nothing to do with the "lost cause" or the confederacy. You continually look for excuses for the Native Americans for their unacceptable behavior and condemn the Southerners, seems hypocritical to me. I condemn both! I have no problem with the removal of statues of these men (including Calhoun, Hogg, etc.) but it must be done across the board. If we are cleansing then get rid of the statues that honor men who had/supported slavery then get rid of those statues that honor men that murdered, raped, tortured, etc. innocent or even the non/semi-innocent. Statues of men like Tecumseh, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, etc. need to go.

[Frostwulf]

If someone can't understand that a bunch of statues created at the height of the KKK power and as a middle finger to the civil rights movement by institutions directly advocating for the Lost Cause mythos surrounding the civil war are racist they they clearly have issues with their mental capacity.

The "lost cause" is to lessen the stigma of the slavery issue, to make what the south did more palatable to people, including themselves. But the statues were made to honor the Southern dead, those that did fight against he U.S. The reason for their removal is not due to the "lost cause" mythos it's due to slavery and the racism that comes with it. To prove this point it's not just confederate statues but those of Taney, Calhoun, Richard Stockton, James Stephen Hogg etc. whom had nothing to do with the confederacy nor of the "lost cause". They either had slaves or were proponents of slavery and that is why they had been removed. And as another reminder some of the statues were created right after the civil war.

[Elfdude]

No they didn't they were made by advocacy groups who were politically fighting against black rights. They were created on the cheap and mass produced to intimidate the black citizenry. This isn't even hidden it's part of the organization's mission and values. Also like none of the statues were created immediately after the civil war.

[Heathen Hammer]

It wasn't a letter, it was a record of his debate with Douglas in Illinois. It IS a snippet of the debate at large; you aren't providing the statement Douglas made before Lincoln said this or Douglas's statement after, or any other part of the debate. The fact you are missing this is problematic.

The only omitted fact that I could be missing that would disprove my well-sourced point is Lincoln stating that he would have allowed South to secede on the condition of slavery being abolished there. If you provide us with such a quote, I'll eagerly concede my defeat.

See how easy it is for me to make it seem like Trump admires Clinton by eliminating the context and just providing a limited quote?

Too bad I didn't do that, hence why this was entirely unrelated.

On what to do with statues is a very common issue for counties around the world. Scotland and England, not to mention Ireland and England, have this issue all the time (such as with monuments, portraits, etc of Cromwell); people who have been brutally oppressed often don't like to have reminders of that fact staring them in the face. I visited India not that long ago, and there is still angst over reminders of British colonialism.

Which isn't the case, given the location was in the area which fought on the Southern side.

Don't pretend to be on the side of history when you don't even know the history you are talking about.

The irony of this statement is overwhelming. I think now I need a beer...

Hm, quite and accusation with no attempt to back it up, so essentially a bark with no bite. If you would actually care to discuss the intricacies of Lee's Gettysburg campaign, Sherman's march to the sea, or the United Kingdom's economic relationship to the Confederacy, I would certainly want to go toe to toe with you.

Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

No they didn't they were made by advocacy groups who were politically fighting against black rights. They were created on the cheap and mass produced to intimidate the black citizenry. This isn't even hidden it's part of the organization's mission and values. Also like none of the statues were created immediately after the civil war.

Aaaand we are back to a century-lasting Southern conspiracy theory.
Kinda reminds me of hippie morons here in Ontario, that protest celebration of Canada Day, because it "intimidates" First Nations.
And yeah, if you are "intimidated" by a statue or any other inanimate object, then it is time for a trip to psychiatrist office.

[Elfdude]

I didn't say it was intimidating. I said the purpose of putting them up was to intimidate and fight against black rights. It was that and to exalt the confederacy for slavery. That is what the lost cause mythos is about.

[NorseThing]

I didn't say it was intimidating. I said the purpose of putting them up was to intimidate and fight against black rights. It was that and to exalt the confederacy for slavery. That is what the lost cause mythos is about.

Agreed, but not all statues and not all people supporting the statues are in the same mold though. If we are taking these down, then lets do it on a statue by statue basis. I personally cannot paint all supporters of the statues with a broad brush such as with the 'lost cause' mythos.

[Elfdude]

Ok, if we remove the ones pushed by the lost cause mythos groups like sisters of the confederacy and brothers of the confederacy you'd see like 95% of them disappear. That's a starting point I can agree to.

[Heathen Hammer]

I didn't say it was intimidating. I said the purpose of putting them up was to intimidate and fight against black rights. It was that and to exalt the confederacy for slavery. That is what the lost cause mythos is about.

So did they want to promote violation of black rights or move away from it? Which one is it?
I admire the sheer hilarity of your post literally contradicting itself. I find quite amusing how the whole liberal hatred of Southeners makes one sound like a NSDAP member talking about Jews in 1920s Bavarian pub.

[Elfdude]

So did they want to promote violation of black rights or move away from it? Which one is it?
I admire the sheer hilarity of your post literally contradicting itself. I find quite amusing how the whole liberal hatred of Southeners makes one sound like a NSDAP member talking about Jews in 1920s Bavarian pub.

Do you know what a contradiction is? Please be specific because there's nothing in what I've said on this which contradicts.

Your apples to oranges comparison is beautifully fallacious. Apparently fighting against the rights of a demographic of people to be legally considered people is equivalent to being being put in concentration camps for your ethnic heritage.

Alt-right logic never ceases to amaze.

[Heathen Hammer]

Do you know what a contradiction is? Please be specific because there's nothing in what I've said on this which contradicts.

Your apples to oranges comparison is beautifully fallacious. Apparently fighting against the rights of a demographic of people to be legally considered people is equivalent to being being put in concentration camps for your ethnic heritage.

You just said that there is a secret conspiracy by Southerners to intimidate black people with memorials for dead soldiers and to also make it look like slavery never happened (not that it is relevant at all at this point). If they wanted to intimidate people, then why would they want to lie about treating them better? I know that according to modern progressive/alt-left, logic and reason are "racist patriarchical concepts", but still.
But sure, your alt-left rant rambling about how a certain ethnicity is behind a century-old conspiracy makes you very different from another group of leftists in 1930s Germany that spoke of a century-old conspiracy by a certain ethnicity as well.

[Elfdude]

I never said to make it seem like slavery never happened. The lost cause mythos is a mythology that the south was better WITH slavery. Hence why they put up the statues and why those statues are a symbol of oppression. They were intended that way.

Whatever else you're on about I have no idea. Sounds like you're triggered.

[NorseThing]

I never said to make it seem like slavery never happened. The lost cause mythos is a mythology that the south was better WITH slavery. Hence why they put up the statues and why those statues are a symbol of oppression. They were intended that way.

Whatever else you're on about I have no idea. Sounds like you're triggered.

We Seem to be going around a bit here.

How about giving a statue that clearly was placed because of the mythos. I suspect you cannot because the mythos is a modern explanation and the statues you are speaking of may be sponsored by the UDC -- a women's organization mainly in the southern states

from wiki:

The duty of memorializing the Confederate dead was a major activity for Southerners devoted to the Lost Cause; chapters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) played the central role.^[37] The UDC was especially influential in the early twentieth century across the South, where its main role was to preserve and uphold the memory of the Confederate veterans, especially those husbands, sons, fathers and brothers who died in the war. Its long-term impact was to promote the Lost Cause image of the antebellum plantation South as an idealized society crushed by the forces of Yankee modernization which undermined traditional gender roles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_C...he_Confederacy

I did not see a bit about intimidation of the blacks as a reason for the monuments. If you have something to give some support of your position, please post it.

If I claim it is a symbol of oppression, that does not make it so. I am just saying this seems more about modern political correctness than a real act of oppression to erect a statue in the early 1900's by some southern women that want a remembrance of things that they themselves do not have a living memory of (or memory as a child). I am not saying that blacks do not find some statues offensive, but I am saying that those who erected the statues did not do so to offend blacks, intimidate blacks (how this would intimidate or change behavior is a good question as well) support the memory of the goodness of slavery, etc.

I understand the current why remove certain statues, but I fail to see a real link between a single statue and the mythos that you seem to say was the driving force to erect a single statue. How about some proof to back up the claims? Just give me one statue that meets clearly your reasons and give the support that was why the specific statue was erected.