Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[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.

[Love Mountain]

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

[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

[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.

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

No, I am not. Pointing out historic realities (i.e. Lincoln being a white supremacist who explicitly stated that abolitionism to him is merely a mean to an end and Confederate statues being built to commemorate fallen soldiers, rather then out of some kind of Southern conspiracy to intimidate minorities) isn't revisionism. That would be something those that oppose removal of statues do.

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.

Well no, that is just one of the many arguments that serves as nail in the coffin for the arguments of those that support removal of statues and other historic artifacts.

[Frostwulf]

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

I’ll revisit your statements after you answer this. If it’s just about white “terrorism” due to confederacy, then why did they remove the statues/busts of Judge Taney, Calhoun, Richard Stockton, James Stephen Hogg etc.?

[alhoon]

Please avoid repeated one-liner responds of "You failed to counter my arguments!" "I countered them" "No you didn't, you just refuse to accept you're wrong".
One or two instances to draw attention of the other party that you don't consider their arguments conclusive or correct is fine. But long chains that have to do solely with whether a poster or side countered the argument effectively or not, make the discussion harder to follow and are considered disruptive.

[IronBrig4]

I’ll revisit your statements after you answer this. If it’s just about white “terrorism” due to confederacy, then why did they remove the statues/busts of Judge Taney, Calhoun, Richard Stockton, James Stephen Hogg etc.?

Easy. Taney and Calhoun are seen as allies of slavery. Stockton was tied to slavery to a limited degree.

James Hogg's statue should not have been taken down, but it's just going to be placed elsewhere. The Hogg foundation objected to the removal but they did it in the civil and proper way. Not by rounding up a bunch of frustrated, white nationalist wastes of oxygen and lighting tiki torches. By engaging in a civil manner, the Hogg Foundation has a chance to put the Hogg statue back up. Engaging in violence ensures that more statues will come down. That's why the Confederate statues' worst enemies are not liberal academics, but the Oxy-snorting trash who, through their general trashiness, turn public opinion against them and thus against the statues. http://hogg.utexas.edu/james-stephen-hogg-statue

By the way, the legacy of slavery is far more vile than the limited number of tortures and executions committed by Plains Indians. Slavery not only held millions of blacks in bondage, but transformed American and especially Southern society in a very negative sense. Those affected by slavery run in the millions while those Americans killed by Indians number in the thousands. The sheer scale makes slavery beyond compare.

[The spartan]

No, I am not. Pointing out historic realities (i.e. Lincoln being a white supremacist who explicitly stated that abolitionism to him is merely a mean to an end and Confederate statues being built to commemorate fallen soldiers, rather then out of some kind of Southern conspiracy to intimidate minorities) isn't revisionism. That would be something those that oppose removal of statues do.

It is weird how actual historians don't talk about Lincoln being a white supremacists. In fact, it almost seems like something you made up (maybe parroting a talking point of some partisan hack) that has no actual historical basis. Your "supporting evidence" has only ever been your personal analysis of a context-less quote from Lincoln I have already tried to put into context for you.

Furthermore, you have never given a reason as to how removing a statue from a public place destroys or changes information held in museums or libraries or other archives. I don't know how history can be destroyed while those institutions remain unaffected.

Well no, that is just one of the many arguments that serves as nail in the coffin for the arguments of those that support removal of statues and other historic artifacts.

I have no idea what you are trying to get across here. You clearly don't respect historians or the work they do, so I don't know how you can go about claiming historical authority. For example:

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

What gets me here is that you aren't even calling out a specific historian or historic society, you are trying to undermine historians in general. That is anti-intellectualism for you.

[NorseThing]

I think HH is stoking the coals with garbage from Lerone Bennett Jr. such as his ditty in Ebony Magazine, February 1968. PBS seems best to debunk this.



https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/res.../#.Wevcgh1e5LM

[IronBrig4]

Bad idea. PBS is just one of the "globalist" groups that is trying to make traditional white Americans out to be villains, and its end goal is to allow swarthy-skinned foreigners in to dilute our bloodlines and destroy the Nordic race.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is weird how actual historians don't talk about Lincoln being a white supremacists. In fact, it almost seems like something you made up (maybe parroting a talking point of some partisan hack) that has no actual historical basis. Your "supporting evidence" has only ever been your personal analysis of a context-less quote from Lincoln I have already tried to put into context for you.

I've posted statements from Lincoln himself and sourced the context. If certain "actual historians" choose to ignore facts to fit the desired narrative, then they are as much "historians" as CNN/FOX are news.

Furthermore, you have never given a reason as to how removing a statue from a public place destroys or changes information held in museums or libraries or other archives. I don't know how history can be destroyed while those institutions remain unaffected.

Its the revisionism of history, which is used to justify their removal.

I have no idea what you are trying to get across here. You clearly don't respect historians or the work they do, so I don't know how you can go about claiming historical authority. For example:

Again, some historians share your opinion, some do not. You obviously think that those that acknowledge facts that prove you wrong are "hacks", while those that don't are "professionals". Basically you just pick and choose which source is legitimate based on how it confirms to your bias. But hey, thanks for ironically proving me right again.

Bad idea. PBS is just one of the "globalist" groups that is trying to make traditional white Americans out to be villains, and its end goal is to allow swarthy-skinned foreigners in to dilute our bloodlines and destroy the Nordic race.

*Yawns* Lincoln explicitly stated that abolition of slavery is a mean to an end (as he explicitly stated in his letter to Horace Greely) and that non-whites (black people specifically) are "inferior". Hell, even freakin' Snopes acknowledges this.

What gets me here is that you aren't even calling out a specific historian or historic society, you are trying to undermine historians in general. That is anti-intellectualism for you.

Again, that's not what I said. It seems like you didn't really read the post that you quoted.