Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[mishkin]

Who has removed history in the past?
The USSR
The Taliban
And now extreme leftist Americans.

Germany.
Italy.
Spain.
Many other countries with an equally regrettable recent past.

[RubiconDecision]

I don't know anyone in the American South who revels in slavery. However, due to the Tenth Amendment, the intention of the Founding Fathers was a weak Federal government and the power being in the States and the People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The People lost the Civil War because the ultimate decision was that no State could secede. Thus it violates the Declaration of Independence.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Thus to this day, some Confederates are remembered and PRAISED.

Not for supporting the abominable institution of Slavery, but because the Confederacy was correct about the power of the States.

Few in the Confederacy owned slaves. Those giant plantations of huge numbers of slaves hardly existed. Some had a handful of slaves. Some had ten. Few had more than a hundred. 95% had zero.

Think about it this way. If my grandfather owns some slaves, does everyone in the family for generations own those slaves? No.

If my grandfather owns a car, and slaves were considered property, then I do not own that car. Period. He owns the car.

Most people didn't own slaves. The only way to twist it is to apply slave ownership to families.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the priviledged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves, and they were not black. They gained a sense of power simply by being white.

In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations have several hundred. Cotton was by far the leading cash crop, but slaves also raised rice, corn, sugarcane, and tobacco. Many plantations raised several different kinds of crops.

Besides planting and harvesting, there were numerous other types of labor required on plantations and farms. Enslaved people had to clear new land, dig ditches, cut and haul wood, slaughter livestock, and make repairs to buildings and tools. In many instances, they worked as mechanics, blacksmiths, drivers, carpenters, and in other skilled trades. Black women carried the additional burden of caring for their families by cooking and taking care of the children, as well as spinning, weaving, and sewing.

Some slaves worked as domestics, providing services for the master's or overseer's families. These people were designated as "house servants," and though their work appeared to be easier than that of the "field slaves," in some ways it was not. They were constantly under the scrutiny of their masters and mistresses, and could be called on for service at any time. They had far less privacy than those who worked the fields.

Because they lived and worked in such close proximity, house servants and their owners tended to form more complex relationships. Black and white children were especially in a position to form bonds with each other. In most situations, young children of both races played together on farms and plantations. Black children might also become attached to white caretakers, such as the mistress, and white children to their black nannies. Because they were so young, they would have no understanding of the system they were born into. But as they grew older they would learn to adjust to it in whatever ways they could.

[swabian]

The removal of historical memorials can only be decided plebiscitarian. The arguments voiced here for the removal of the statues are largely embarassingly petty-minded and mean-spirited. Who really cares if they implicitly stood for slavery once upon a time, it's part of the history of the country and those memorials don't have to be necessarily seen as shrines of worship to the god of slavery or something. There's memorials of German nobles, Wilhelm II and Bismarck all over Germany. Nobody sees that as a form of instigation of anti-democratic sentiment (exceptmaybe some SJW 's i haven't heard about yet).

This should be clearified with a majority of 50% or 66% of the local populus and then never again be an opportunity for some self-declared world-improvers to work themselvges up over it. Have some humor ffs.

[The spartan]

Who has removed history in the past?
The USSR
The Taliban
And now extreme leftist Americans.

It's not removing history. Removing history involves banning books and museums, you know, where we keep history. Removing a statue from public display is not that.

[RubiconDecision]

While the politicians in the South might argue about the rights of the States and the People to have indentured servants and slaves, then it does NOT follow that all white Southerners desired to own slaves.

Rather, just like today, all might desire to be wealthy. Whites in the South wanted their votes at the State level to determine EVERY power not specifically granted to the Federal government. PERIOD.

That could be a wide range of political items.

Then the terrible tariff harmed the South and incensed them.

Then new territories wanted to assert their local political power.

And slavery was contested in several states like Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, etc. And the issue among the citizens might be states' rights, not slavery specifically.

Members elected to legislatures might be vehemently pro-Slavery but the common poor citizen couldn't fathom having the economic possibility of such a thing transpiring. It was well beyond their means at a time of very limited economic mobility.

You have to remember that most whites outside of rare Abolitionists felt black slaves were inferior due to Western Civilization, and that Africans sold captives for profit, and some even felt they had no souls based upon erroneous knowledge of African cultures and achievements. Which persisted until the explorers to Africa proved otherwise.

And this is bemoaned persuasively by Frederick Douglass and WEB DuBois.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SmA2pazgtKw
Even those Republicans who opposed slavery felt that it might be best if they be returned to Africa or live seperately.

Which strangely enough is supported by African American leadership across history. And even today there is a push for all black elementary schools, all black dorms, living in cloister neighborhoods, all black universities, etc.

A return to segregation as a positive force on society??? Insane!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EFGAfqWEziM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BMpAxODCapw

[RubiconDecision]

Of course removing statues is removing history. Scroll back to see my video on the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying the huge wooden Buddhas statues by demolition and precious art in galleries.

They cannot be recovered.

I am offended by Curtis Lemay, who single handedly is responsible for annhilating Japanese civilians due to his policy of firebombing entire cities such that up to 1.2 million were incinerated and not included the atomic bombs. Lemay wanted to KEEP incinerating but was stopped.

Then gleefully wanted to use tactical atomic bombs in Korea.

I would never take a sledgehammer to his statue or even demand its removal. Eventually the People will know his malevolence if his statue is around.

I am offended by Margaret Sanger who is responsible for 17 million African Americans being aborted. She wanted to sterilize "degenerates" ie homosexuals. She wanted to sterilize ethnic groups so these subhumans wouldn't create problems with crime. She wanted to end the life of the mentally handicapped so they wouldn't have children.

She was a monster and no doubt there are plaques and statues of her.

As late as 1980 there were teen organizations in America who assisted the mentally retarded with fundraisers so they would be seperated in their own schools even if they could be mainstreamed and graduate from regular public schools.

And their leadership spoke of compassionate sterilization. It was bloody grotesque stuff masked in ersatz humanitarianism.

[The spartan]

Of course removing statues is removing history. Scroll back to see my video on the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying the huge wooden Buddhas statues by demolition and precious art in galleries.

They cannot be recovered.

I am going to stop you here, as you are talking about two, entirely different, non-comparable events. Like, that is really intellectually lazy; you just took to events that can only be connected through the act of physically removing a statue but are otherwise not relatable. Those statues were original. And ancient. And in a museum. And destroyed with sledgehammers. This thread is about removing statues from public places only. How are you not getting that already? If ALL confederate statues everywhere were banned, then I would be outraged with you, but that isn't even close to what is happening. If the government stated that confederate statues must be removed to museums or private property, then it would be huge issue for a whole multitude of reasons. We are talking about statues ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, like parks and courthouses. How the hell does that remove history? I can still talk about Robert E. Lee, and write books about him. You can make a little shrine to him if you want. On your own property.

[Cope]

I am going to stop you here, as you are talking about two, entirely different, non-comparable events. Like, that is really intellectually lazy; you just took to events that can only be connected through the act of physically removing a statue but are otherwise not relatable. Those statues were original. And ancient. And in a museum. And destroyed with sledgehammers. This thread is about removing statues from public places only. How are you not getting that already? If ALL confederate statues everywhere were banned, then I would be outraged with you, but that isn't even close to what is happening. If the government stated that confederate statues must be removed to museums or private property, then it would be huge issue for a whole multitude of reasons. We are talking about statues ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, like parks and courthouses. How the hell does that remove history? I can still talk about Robert E. Lee, and write books about him. You can make a little shrine to him if you want. On your own property.

I agree that there is a difference between the removal of monuments and their destruction. Nevertheless, the debate is not one that particularly relates to the existence of these statues on public property: many of the museums in which you might expect to find Confederate "artifacts" are either publicly owned or subsidized. The issue is instead the contemporary functionality of Confederate monuments and icons: should they be consigned to historical (or private) spaces or remain as community symbols?

[RubiconDecision]

Why is it so difficult to process that the Confederacy were NOT the enemy. The Confederacy were the brothers of others who supported the Union. Family members fought family members. Friends fought friends. Military colleagues found themselves fighting the very people they counted upon for war.

So the Confederacy was never destroyed but brought to heel by losing despite the Confederates having legitimate political issues of the 10th Amendment, secession, and outrageous illegal actions by Lincoln.

Lincoln knew what everyone knew, the Others had to be brought back into the fold regardless of the outcome because otherwise secession would naturally happen. The South might lose the Civil War but win the Confederacy.

Texas could easily split off. Future states could easily split off.

If you can't process that the Confederates could not truly be demonized as is done by necessity in war, then you will never understand the American South, Virginia, Texas, and even the Western states ethos...particularly California.

The Confederates didn't lose. The American People lost because now Federalism is illegally the law of the Land.

Take homosexual marriage. Now I hate marriage laws on principle, but think anyone should marry whenever they want. Well due to the Tenth Amendment, and since the Constitution is silent on marriage, then the Federal government CAN NOT make a policy of homosexual marriage legally. Unless an Amendment is ratified by the state legislatures, it is illegal for the judiciary to impose a de facto Amendment without ratification.

That is the correct legal process.

That is what the US Civil War was fought over in the People's hearts, if not the politicians' rhetoric.

Public land. Define that. For you see, there are lots of monuments which might offend indivduals but being offended is not a right which demands an outcome.

It belongs to all the citizens within that domain. If it is a city, the a state cannot supersede the memorial. Nor the federal government supersede a state memorial. Nor private citizens supersede national memorials.

There has to be a process where citizens can challenge such rulings.

Did you realize it will cost millions to remove and relocate these and that is unbudgeted? Therefore it cannot be legally done without funds too?

The 14th Amendment was utilized to grant natural and civil rights to Black Americans, but these include the written natural rights as listed in the Amendments. That doesn't include marriage. We have no marriage natural rights yet, but they are understood, but abused due to a sordid piecemeal history of miscegenation laws.

The logical solution is an Amendment for Marriage law.

[Frostwulf]

If you're so convinced these AHA historians are lying to you, then put your money where your mouth is and email them. Most of those who commented on the subject are professors with university email addresses. They would have the archival sources listed.

I never said they were lying, I said it seems that it was supposition and I can see a potential kernel of truth to it. I’m not the one using them as a source, you are. I have looked and I see nothing that supports their supposition except for the time period when the statues were placed. Again I said that it was plausible, but I have not seen any evidence to support that view except for time of placement. To me that equals supposition.
Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, since it is your source not mine and show me where the supporting evidence is.

It doesn't excuse their actions.

Yet you try to rationalize it using the following excuses:

The Native American descendants of those who fought in the Indian Wars went through generations of hardship on reservations and in boarding schools where their culture was destroyed.

In the Indians' cases, they didn't launch a war against the US. The US brought it to them instead and broke many treaties in the process. We put up statues to the chiefs to commemorate their decades of struggle against rapacious settlers, US soldiers, and horrific living conditions on the reservations. And monuments to Sitting Bull weren't erected as a means of shutting up local minorities.

And these statues aren't necessarily meant to honor violent chiefs, but their peoples. The chiefs are more recognizable than a squaw with a papoose.

(With the exception of Black Hawk the rest are to honor the men themselves, not the people. Would you really want the embodiment of the people represented by the like of Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, etc.?)

Once again, the Indian statues did not inspire a century of terrorism like the Confederate statues did. If young, angry Indian men with tiki torches rallied around the statues and murdered a counter-protester, then we can talk about possible removal.

Yes in the 1960's a bunch of southerners routinely lit up tiki torches and went after non-whites. And I missed in the videos where the KKK types who were protesting the removal of the statues lit up torches to lynch people. I have yet to read where it was used as terrorism with the exception of that mayor. The mayor didn’t say that they went around killing people (he likened it to burning crosses) because of these statues, they used them (according to him) to show “to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city.”. You are the one who is making way more to it then anyone else. No one else is saying they gathered around these statues with torches to go kill people.

By using symbols of the Confederacy.

But they didn’t go around saying lets lynch those people in the name of Robert E. Lee! These were not used as a rallying cry, if you have proof of it then present it.

Regarding Longstreet, he has relatively few statues in the South. That's because he cooperated with Reconstruction and put the war behind him. Lost Causers such as Jubal Early spent the next several decades vilifying Longstreet as a scalawag. They even went so far as to suggest that he intentionally sabotaged the Confederate strategy at Gettysburg. And this is one of the most successful Confederate generals. This goes to show there was a method to these monuments.

It goes to show you that the people who erected these statues didn’t venerate him as much as the others, after all there are still statues of him. Putting up statues of him kind of backfires on the cause of terrorism doesn’t it? After all does it make since to use his statue for intimidation considering what he had done after the civil war?


This is the crux of the whole situation. The reason I have read outside of this forum for the removal of the statues is due to slavery and rebellion against the U.S. You post about the mayor of New Orleans saying the statues were a form of terrorism and then you expand that and say that the statues were rallying points (show me the proof, not where they are protecting the statues but where they are meeting there to go after someone). You and the mayor(to a much lesser degree) who espouse that belief. The mayor does go on to say that “ they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city.”, that I can believe (but yet have not seen any proof). No where do I read of non-whites cowering in abject fear of these statues, cringing and afraid to go into a courthouse because of these statues. If it one time these statues were used for that reason, it certainly does not hold true today.
The whole reason expressed for the statues to be removed was due to slavery and the rebellion against the U.S. Judge Taney, Calhoun, Richard Stockton, James Stephen Hogg, and etc. were removed due to owning slaves or supporting slavery. So no it’s not just about the “terrorism” of the statues, it’s because people don’t want statues venerating those that supported the evil institution of slavery and white supremacy.
What I do object to is ideological facade of moral high ground of the left in ignoring statues that represent some of the worst traits in humanity and turning a blind eye to it. You will not see in the media anywhere about removing the statues of the previously mentioned people who have done worse to humanity then any of the confederates or slave owners.
So now, will you join me in condemning the glorification of murders, rapists, mutilators, tortures embodied in the statues of Crazy Horse, Red cloud, etc.?

[IronBrig4]

It's like arguing with an anti-vaxxer. "You're showing me statements from the WHO and CDC. Where's their proof?" The historians' statements ARE the proof and they have the primary sources. Other historians will take them at their word because the AHA has the credibility, and few people have the time and money to verify every archival document.

People didn't cower in fear of the statues, but putting them in a prominent location was a statement, especially in a location that was central to the town. We're talking about an era where "sundown towns" were common. Chances were the presence of a Confederate monument outside a train station or courthouse signified a sundown town or an otherwise unwelcoming community.

It goes to show that white Southerners snubbed Longstreet because of his actions during Reconstruction. They did the same to white Southern Unionists. Look at Kentucky and West Virginia, and you'll see the Confederate monuments far outnumber Union monuments. That's because the Lost Cause activists won the war for the narrative. They stewed in bitterness while the rest of the country moved forward and past the war.

If you want to condemn the actions of Indian chiefs, go ahead. I'll condemn the violence with you, but I recognize that violence as something that accompanied all wars on the frontier. What Confederate statues and symbols did was give comfort to white terrorists. They still do that, which is why they need to be removed from those communities. Those hate groups must be stripped of every sanctuary. Although I accept putting up another monument next to them as a viable alternative.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah, its not like historians can be biased or anything. That never happened. Never-ever.
Of course, Confederate statues were erected to commemorate people who fought for their land, implying that they were built to "intimidate black people' is ridiculous and just shows how biased one is. Were monuments to KIA in Vietnam built to intimidate Vietnamese Americans? Were monuments to revolutionary soldiers built to intimidate British? Of course not. Neither were the Confederate monuments.
Also note how people who approve of statue removal also talk about imaginary "white terrorism", a term widely used by domestic terrorist groups such as antifa.

[IronBrig4]

Yeah, its not like historians can be biased or anything. That never happened. Never-ever.

They still possess the training and expertise that their doctorates require.

Of course, Confederate statues were erected to commemorate people who fought for their land, implying that they were built to "intimidate black people' is ridiculous and just shows how biased one is. Were monuments to KIA in Vietnam built to intimidate Vietnamese Americans? Were monuments to revolutionary soldiers built to intimidate British? Of course not. Neither were the Confederate monuments.

I have yet to hear a peep from you about the comparative lack of USCT and Southern Unionist monuments in the South, even though hundreds of thousands of black and white Southerners fought for the Union. Monument construction was specifically geared towards excluding them from the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War.

Those analogies don't hold water. Americans did not engage in a century of terrorism against Vietnamese or British immigrants after those respective wars.

Also note how people who approve of statue removal also talk about imaginary "white terrorism", a term widely used by domestic terrorist groups such as antifa.

White terrorism in the South was very real. It was such a problem that the Enforcement Acts and Ku Klux Klan Act had to be implemented. Immediately after Reconstruction, white Southern mobs launched pogroms against local blacks. And many of these statues were erected at the height of racial violence. Have a look at this map of lynchings and you'll see the South is way over-represented and especially when monuments started to go up in large numbers. http://www.monroeworktoday.org/explo...2/indexif.html

[ramiroh146]

They still possess the training and expertise that their doctorates require.



I have yet to hear a peep from you about the comparative lack of USCT and Southern Unionist monuments in the South, even though hundreds of thousands of black and white Southerners fought for the Union. Monument construction was specifically geared towards excluding them from the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War.

Those analogies don't hold water. Americans did not engage in a century of terrorism against Vietnamese or British immigrants after those respective wars.



White terrorism in the South was very real. It was such a problem that the Enforcement Acts and Ku Klux Klan Act had to be implemented. Immediately after Reconstruction, white Southern mobs launched pogroms against local blacks. And many of these statues were erected at the height of racial violence. Have a look at this map of lynchings and you'll see the South is way over-represented and especially when monuments started to go up in large numbers. http://www.monroeworktoday.org/explo...2/indexif.html

Listen people those statues are a part of history if taking them down make people feel better then those people are taking it way to far. They probably also want some type of compensation. Mainly money so they can forget the passed. That's bull .
I would rather pay for their airplane thicket and give them the opportunity they think they were deprived of.
And don't let them come back until the apologize for the way they think.

White supremacy is wrong cause they always what to hurt people to prove they are right that's why they are wrong.

[Love Mountain]

How do you manage to constantly regurgitate arguments that have already been rebutted?

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't see how "training" makes on unbiased.
You don't really build monuments for those who defected to the other side, unless you are that side. Has nothing to do with the whole Southern conspiracy theory you are trying to convince us with. Did Southerners also spread chemtrails that make frogs racist?
Southeners also didn't engage into "century of terrorism".
And if white supremacists need a monument to gather around, they can do that around Lincolns' monument. You know, the guy whose views on black people would make Hitler look like a typical boomer liberal.

[The spartan]

Southeners also didn't engage into "century of terrorism".
And if white supremacists need a monument to gather around, they can do that around Lincolns' monument. You know, the guy whose views on black people would make Hitler look like a typical boomer liberal.

You are the one destroying history here, with these desperate attempts of revisionism.

[IronBrig4]

I don't see how "training" makes on unbiased.

They're still the best-qualified people to speak on this issue. Much more so than the United Daughters of the Confederacy which funded many of those statues.

You don't really build monuments for those who defected to the other side, unless you are that side.

But Kentucky and West Virginia stayed in the Union. That would make the rebels defectors.

Southeners also didn't engage into "century of terrorism".

Check out the link I provided. The majority of white supremacist riots were in the South, and so were most of the lynchings.

And if white supremacists need a monument to gather around, they can do that around Lincolns' monument. You know, the guy whose views on black people would make Hitler look like a typical boomer liberal.

You keep saying that but cannot provide evidence. At least not evidence that cannot be easily refuted.

[Heathen Hammer]

You are the one destroying history here, with these desperate attempts of revisionism.

So... not destroying statues to war veterans is now "destroying history". The scale of your double-think is impressive.

They're still the best-qualified people to speak on this issue. Much more so than the United Daughters of the Confederacy which funded many of those statues.

I'm pretty sure that people who had those statues built have better idea of why they were built then modern historians who obviously have to adapt to the current political establishment, hence all the revisionism among the historians that you use as an excuse for Democrat apparatchiks to LARP as ISIS.

But Kentucky and West Virginia stayed in the Union. That would make the rebels defectors.

Well, in that case I'm sure nobody would have a hysteric fit over a statue built to honor them. Only mentally ill people can be "intimidated" by statues.

Check out the link I provided. The majority of white supremacist riots were in the South, and so were most of the lynchings.

That doesn't really correlate with your previous claim about "century of terrorism". Racism in its violent and oppressive aspects has always been more of a Democrat thing, rather then a Southern thing. Even today prominent members of Democrat party refer to KKK leaders as their friends and mentors.

You keep saying that but cannot provide evidence. At least not evidence that cannot be easily refuted.

I provided plenty of quotes by him in this thread alone.

[The spartan]

So... not destroying statues to war veterans is now "destroying history". The scale of your double-think is impressive.

What kind of strawman is that? What I said wasn't even close to that. I specifically called out your revisionism, nothing about statues. See, even if a statue is taken down (from public land) that doesn't necessarily change anything in our collective knowledge. We still have access to the information (which is what history is) we had before and can all upon it for knowledge and guidance. If you are try to rewrite history to something you find more preferable and then try to disseminate that information, that is much closer to destroying history as you are trying to bend it the narrative you prefer, not the narrative we are most confident in. You are trying to change the information that is history.

If you were actually concerned about history, you would be making more historic arguments about why removing a statue of Robert E. Lee counts as revisionism. Like, if you wanted to discuss his actions or reputation, that is one thing. He is, indeed, a complex and interesting character in history. But I have a feeling you don't really care and just see this a culture battle to fight.