Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,624
Lisbon, Portugal
#31
Bad reply, not what I asked for. Name a specific statue. Name who built it. Its quite simple. If you think there is a conspiracy, then you need to do more then speak in generics, you need to prove the conspiracy.

It wont even be hard, the evidence for what you are suggesting is readily available to find. But if you don't know of its existence, how can you discuss a conspiracy? Its seemingly as if you actually aren't nearly as knowledgeable about this subject as you attempting to perpetuate. If that's the case, how can you feel so strongly on an opinion founded on ignorance, and how can you lecture others on what to think?
First of all, this is not a conspiracy neither I am espousing one. Second, your question seems futile. What difference those it make to my argument if I name a single statue? We are talking about a general issue, so I talk generally.
Second, I'm not lecturing, I'm stating my opinion. Something that we all do on historum. Third, you are accusing me of ignorance without even engaging enough on the discussion to truly know the extent of my knowledge on the subject. We are already making a conclusion without listening further.

Now back to your question:

- There is a 351ft concrete obelisk marking the Kentucky birthplace of Davis, the Confederacy’s only president. It was funded and erected by the UDC in honour of, obviously, Jefferson Davies.
- There is another famous monument, "Spirit of the Confederacy " in Houston, Texas built by UDC.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, from the roughly 700 monuments erected, some 450 were to UDC efforts. SPLC also conducted a survey in which found out those monuments, and also symbols, were erected during the late 19th and early 20th centuries – when states were enacting Jim Crow laws meant to disenfranchise blacks – and amid the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
Link: "Whose heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy"

The American Historical Association, which is the largest society of historians and professor of history in the United States, and the highest authority in historiographical research and publishing, and also the largest promoter of academic historical research and the leading public advocate for the field, did publish official statements approving the so-called "conspiracy" you think I'm promoting.
Link: - Removal of Confederate statues and flags?
- file:///C:/Users/rober/Downloads/AHA%20Statement%20on%20Confederate%20Monuments%20(1).pdf
- Historians on the Confederate Monument Debate | AHA

I'm not an expert on this issue neither am I professionally or academically involved in it. I have never claimed that I was, although you assume I was apparently using my "expertise" to lecture other historumites.
I do enough research to know how to discriminate data - I'm professionally involved in academic research, although not in the field of history - and I know and recognize the importance and the authority of the academic and scientific consensus regarding a certain era of research or subject.
There is an academic consensus regarding the context of the erection of those confederate statues. If you don't agree with that, please explain and please show anything that proves the contrary.
 
Likes: Fiver
Aug 2015
1,812
Los Angeles
#33
So unless the statue of MLK Jr shows him naked and having sex some woman not his wife, it doesn't count? Wow, that's a new argument. I'm not buying it, the monuments in question don't show Southern slave owners raping or beating slaves, or killing Union troops, so they aren't being shown celebrating anything immoral and yet many want to take them down. Gosh, all this selective outrage sure is confusing!

How does a CSA veteran and their descendants see a CSA general in uniform as a traitor to their nation, one in which they weren't even members of at the time? The CSA was a separate country. Are you really wanting to get into the legal debate about whether secession is legal, especially in how it applied in 1860?

Funny thing is if you google it you'll be hit with a wide range of conflicting opinions. Many jumped on board the "Secession is illegal" side back in 2008-2016, but flipped to the "Secession is legal" argument since 2017. Something happened during that time, might have influenced them, what was it?
That's taking an extreme. What is the main thing we are celebrating when we have these statue? When we have a statue of Lincoln, what are we celebrating him? The main spirit we hope to pass down long after we are gone.
So yah, when someone is putting up MLK statue we aren't thinking about oh yah that guy fucked many different woman and was a cheater, what a guy! We are saying look at this man fighting for civil liberties and justice. Whereas the confederate statues were put up NOT after the Civil War, in memory of the loved ones they lost or whatever, but like a huge numbers were set up in the 50s and 60s. So if someone want to have a statue of their family member they lost during the war in the 1880s or whatever, preferably in private land, I don't have anything against it. But if some statue is set up in like 1950s or 1960s, just to show people who were the boss, I find it difficult to defend these positions.

And CSA wasn't a separate country. It was a rebelling faction of a country. This isn't even discussing whether it is legal or not, but rather, was there any agreement on both side that they are a separate country? When the colonist decided that we aren't a country with Britain anymore, we have to fight a war and make them sign on a peace treaty that yah, the US is a country. The CSA lost, so unfortunately they weren't a country and they are traitors. The CSA military personnel, I would assume, swore to defend the Union, and then decided that no they rather support their home state.

I never believed session is legal. It could be right, but you would have to fight a war to find out.
 
Jul 2016
7,160
USA
#34
That's taking an extreme. What is the main thing we are celebrating when we have these statue? When we have a statue of Lincoln, what are we celebrating him? The main spirit we hope to pass down long after we are gone.
So yah, when someone is putting up MLK statue we aren't thinking about oh yah that guy fucked many different woman and was a cheater, what a guy! We are saying look at this man fighting for civil liberties and justice. Whereas the confederate statues were put up NOT after the Civil War, in memory of the loved ones they lost or whatever, but like a huge numbers were set up in the 50s and 60s. So if someone want to have a statue of their family member they lost during the war in the 1880s or whatever, preferably in private land, I don't have anything against it. But if some statue is set up in like 1950s or 1960s, just to show people who were the boss, I find it difficult to defend these positions.

And CSA wasn't a separate country. It was a rebelling faction of a country. This isn't even discussing whether it is legal or not, but rather, was there any agreement on both side that they are a separate country? When the colonist decided that we aren't a country with Britain anymore, we have to fight a war and make them sign on a peace treaty that yah, the US is a country. The CSA lost, so unfortunately they weren't a country and they are traitors. The CSA military personnel, I would assume, swore to defend the Union, and then decided that no they rather support their home state.

I never believed session is legal. It could be right, but you would have to fight a war to find out.
How is what I wrote extreme? You're suggesting a statue of a general on horseback should be removed because the uniform and horse promotes slavery, but discount statue of MLK Jr because his statues don't promote adultery, or any of the other bad things he was known for. Selective outrage=hypocrisy.

Nobody is tearing down statues because what they depict is racist, anymore they're ripping down statues in Seattle glorifying pedophilia, or Che Guevera shirts and Hammer and Cycle symbols because they represent the massacre of millions. Its who certain individuals were as individuals that some few but very vocal people have issues. They don't want the people they personally see as "bad guys" being depicted as heroes. Their selective outage is so that they'll defend all the others guilty, simply because its not politically benefitial to act on those.

MLK Jr, like Mr. Lincoln (a known tyrant, even if he did save the Union the manner he often did it was deplorable), pretty much every other person who ever had a statue made of them, to include Mother Theresa and Ghandi, were all bad people with major flaws who screwed others over when they needed to, who lied, cheated, conned, and abused their power, who acted for nefarious gain, etc. And yet few are calling for those statues to be torn down, those buildings and streets to be renamed. Because selective outrage and nothing else.

Because its political and nothing else. That's it. All the virtue signaling in this thread is selective on one topic. They wont discuss any other, have no desire to discuss any other, will declare any other comparisons are extreme, because it interferes with their message. Which is simple politics and nothing more.

And how can you call someone a traitor if secession (not session) isn't illegal? You're suggesting force of arms? If that is true, then it further supports the post ACM Lost Cause ideology. They didn't lose because they were wrong, they lost simply because at that period in the 1860s they couldnt' win militarily. What does that say about now? Can force of arms keep those statues up? Are you personally game for that? Most would suggest no, that the rule of law is probably a better way and the laws of combat shouldn't dictate right or wrong.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,624
Lisbon, Portugal
#35
How is what I wrote extreme? You're suggesting a statue of a general on horseback should be removed because the uniform and horse promotes slavery, but discount statue of MLK Jr because his statues don't promote adultery, or any of the other bad things he was known for. Selective outrage=hypocrisy.
The reason is, it is not solely because of a statue of a general on horseback using an uniform and horse, that people associate it with promotion of slavery and wanted it remove. There is an historical and political context of why most of those statues were erected.

I've never saw any episode in the history of the world in which equestrian statues of generals are erected in public places for non-political or non-ideological reasons. Most of those statues represent an ideology. An ideology that is not accepted by the general public or the ideals of that nation in the 21st century. Therefore I don't see any reason of why they should still be in public spaces, just as I don't see any reason to have statues of Lenin in any major public square in Russia or statues of Saddam Hussein in public places in Iraq.
 
Last edited:

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,368
Stockport Cheshire UK
#36
These statues were nearly all put up during the period of the "Jim Crow" laws, they were/are a celebration of White supremacy, there is no way that any of them should be allowed near government buildings.
 
Jul 2016
7,160
USA
#37
The reason is, it is not solely because of a statue of a general on horseback using an uniform and horse, that people associate it with promotion of slavery and wanted it remove. There is an historical and political context of why most of those statues were erected.

I've never saw any episode in the history of the world in which equestrian statues of generals are erected in public places for non-political or ideological reasons. Most of those statues represent an ideology. An ideology that is not accepted by the general public or the ideals of that nation in the 21st century. Therefore I don't see any reason of why they should still be in public spaces, just as I don't see any reason to have statues of Lenin in any major public square in Russia or statues of Saddam Hussein in public places in Iraq.
People are demanding that the names be removed, not just the statues. The statues are a tiny sliver of this discussion, they are attempting to remove ALL sources of CSA pride. Not just generals on horseback, they are renaming schools, even going so far to suggest naming major universities. Its a political maneuver bred on hypocrisy and selective outrage.

And the historical and political context was the same as any other, ancestors honoring their parents. The United Daughters of the Confederacy are no different than groups like Daughters of the American Revolution, they're social clubs for upper class girls to do work with the community, to socialize, while the men folk belong to other clubs. They sponsor and put up statues in the 1890s-1920s because it was their own parents and grandparents who fought in or lived through the American Civil War. That is just what Southerners do, they have pride in their heritage and that includes martial pride (which I'm sure offends many on Historum). Southerners honor their ancestors in the past the same exact way they are still doing it to this day, putting up statues individuals fighting in other wars, which I'm sure many will be offended of because they think it represents American imperialism, the evils of Capitalism, or whatever is the latest outrage.

This statue, called the Price of Liberty, is going to be built in Texas to celebrate people like me, who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. And even if they aren't honest enough to say so, I bet money many on Historum will have a problem with it. So what? Many of them have a problem with the United States of America existing in almost any form.

And if the Russians themselves or the Iraqis themselves want those statues up, someone from America or Portugal should have no say what so ever in the matter. Mind your business.
 
Jul 2016
7,160
USA
#38
These statues were nearly all put up during the period of the "Jim Crow" laws, they were/are a celebration of White supremacy, there is no way that any of them should be allowed near government buildings.
The subject is far far far beyond statues being removed, you get this right? Its not just miles beyond that, its continents. Are you or anyone else going to honestly tell me that this stuff below was named for the purpose of promoting white supremacy?

Washington and Lee University to rename two buildings; changes to come to Lee Chapel

Robert E. Lee built the chapel himself, just to pray in, at a school he was president of, post war. You think Lee named the chapel after himself to promote white supremacy? At Washington and Lee University? How long till they demand changing the name of the school itself? Many have already demanded it, they just aren't listened to. Yet. But every day as more of their demands are kowtowed, they grow bolder.
 
Jul 2016
7,160
USA
#39
There are crimes and degrees. Today, being a white supremacist is more of infamy than being a communist (though I think most would label King more of a socialist). Also, I think the guys who did the shooting and ordering the shooting are on a higher degree-plane than the guys who just did a lot of talking.

If you want to make a case against commie statues, you probably have to start with Lenin, who used to have a statute in Greenwich Village; and Che Guevara, who had a statue in Central Park when I lived in NYC,
Thanks for bringing up those statues in the NYC. Where is the outrage against them? Is someone seriously going to suggest that Robert E. Lee's name associated with a chapel is more offensive then a statue of two 20th century mass murderers, whose personal victims are still alive today?

And why is it that "white supremacists" are worse than the communists? How does someone who claims their race is better than another get more criticism then someone whose ideology literally murdered nearly a hundred million people in the 20th century? It would almost lend me to believe a conspiracy exists to suggest that!

But surely not! Can there be a reason that far left mass murderers are praised while historic "racist" white supremists are targeted? Because then that means, gasp, that there is an actual conspiracy promoting this, and those involved are...gasp...Far Left socialist/marxist/communist supporters.

Can that be true? :eek:
 
Aug 2015
1,812
Los Angeles
#40
And how can you call someone a traitor if secession (not session) isn't illegal?
I wasn't aware the right to secession was in the Constitution.

So if it is in the Constitution, kindly point to where it says.

Otherwise, I don't know what the **** you call people who waged war on the rightful government of the United States of America.
 

Similar History Discussions