Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#71
There are a lot of variables from the (multi-variate) equation, like Lincoln, that could be removed and there would have been no war (as I just posted). Also, slavery was in the equation from 1783 to 1860, but no civil war.

Entire books, numerous academic papers, and countless words have been devoted to the causes of the Civil War. Don't you think any attempt to boil that down to a single sentence or word must fail?
But if it wasn't Lincoln it would be someone else. Like you said, slavery had been dividing the US since it's formation, and the anti-slavery sentiment was growing in the North and in the Western world at the time.
 
Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#72
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.
That's simple. Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact.

When the legality of secession was challenged in Texas V White, the Supreme Court said that secession which preceded the Civil war and formed the Confederacy was Unconstitutional. That is based on the powers given them to determine what is fact by the Constitution of the US.
 
Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#73
If on a state level they have got all the rights to remove those flags. And if the majority of the citizens of this or that state agree on removing the flags I don't see why they shouldn't remove them.

From an external perspective, just to say, I don't tend to connect those flags and those symbols with slavery [otherwise we should connect with slavery a lot of other flags ... the French flag, the British flag ... if I remember well, just to say, the Union Jack got adopted in 1801, slavery had abolished in 1833]. Its simply a political choice, not a historical matter.
Big difference though...

None of those other flags were flown solely to war against the USA to protect and expand the institution of slavery. Remember the leaders of the Confederacy bragged that they were the first country ever to be formed specifically on the belief that whites were better than blacks and blacks should be enslaved.

Other countries had other parts of their histories good and bad. They didn't spend their entire existance fighting against the US to protect slavery.
 
Likes: Fiver

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
23,865
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#74
Big difference though...

None of those other flags were flown solely to war against the USA to protect and expand the institution of slavery. Remember the leaders of the Confederacy bragged that they were the first country ever to be formed specifically on the belief that whites were better than blacks and blacks should be enslaved.

Other countries had other parts of their histories good and bad. They didn't spend their entire existance fighting against the US to protect slavery.
Historically the difference is not that big ... the British Empire during the colonial age [like France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain ...] knew a certain ideological justification based on a diffused persuasion of superiority. Furthermore the United States justified their expansion towards West using an expression like "manifest destiny". Which was the difference between slavery and the extermination of the Natives on the base of a "manifest destiny"?

History is never black & white. Let's keep in mind this.

The right question is not "were the losers wrong?" but ... "were the losers more wrong than the winners?"

I wonder ...
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
23,865
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#75
This said, I'm a rude colonialist and I will never renounce to what the Western Civilization has conquered fighting it out until the end for centuries and centuries. Natural selection works also about mankind: dominating civilizations survive ... the others don't.
 
Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#76
Historically the difference is not that big ... the British Empire during the colonial age [like France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain ...] knew a certain ideological justification based on a diffused persuasion of superiority. Furthermore the United States justified their expansion towards West using an expression like "manifest destiny". Which was the difference between slavery and the extermination of the Natives on the base of a "manifest destiny"?

History is never black & white. Let's keep in mind this.

The right question is not "were the losers wrong?" but ... "were the losers more wrong than the winners?"

I wonder ...
Actually it is massive. Confederacy spent it's time only doing one thing. Rebelling against the USA in a war killing hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, military and civilian to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery. No other country came close to doing that to the US.



And if the question is "were they more wrong", I think their Vice President and first federal official to take office, just a week after helping write their Constitution when tasked with explaining to their new nation why they were here made it clear what their stance was.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

Yeah, that's bad. I don't support that or the government which founded itself trying to kill US citizens to try and protect that. Trying to whitewash that truth away to support a flag is gross in my opinion.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
23,865
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#77
Actually it is massive. Confederacy spent it's time only doing one thing. Rebelling against the USA in a war killing hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, military and civilian to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery. No other country came close to doing that to the US.



And if the question is "were they more wrong", I think their Vice President and first federal official to take office, just a week after helping write their Constitution when tasked with explaining to their new nation why they were here made it clear what their stance was.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

Yeah, that's bad. I don't support that or the government which founded itself trying to kill US citizens to try and protect that. Trying to whitewash that truth away to support a flag is gross in my opinion.
You're right ... but what happened to Natives? Did the United States give a part of the continent back to Natives leaving the West? I'm not aware of such a historical decision ...

What I'm underlining is that it was a political matter, not a matter of principals. The Northerns had to find a way to destroy the economical base of the Southern states ... let's abolish slavery! Nice, right, great, appreciable ... but the Natives?
 
Oct 2014
146
California, USA
#78
I had no issue with the statues up until racist groups started marching to keep them up...and then suddenly I saw them differently. Before that I saw them as just a part of history and as harmless. If the majority of the people rallying around their preservation were historians or locals protecting cherished landmarks, than I might be out there with them. But the fact that these other groups came out of the woodwork in mass when the statues started being taken down shows me these things are still powerful symbols for a cause I disagree with. It shows me we aren't as removed from that history as we would like them to be. It shows me that the people complaining about the statues being there weren't complaining over nothing.

Throughout history, statues in public places have been symbols. When people choose to topple a statue has always been a reaction to what the statue represented. I don't mind what these statues toppling represents about our time (though when they have actually been toppled and in the process destroyed...I'd prefer them being carefully moved to a museum).
 
Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#79
You're right ... but what happened to Natives? Did the United States give a part of the continent back to Natives leaving the West? I'm not aware of such a historical decision ...

What I'm underlining is that it was a political matter, not a matter of principals. The Northerns had to find a way to destroy the economical base of the Southern states ... let's abolish slavery! Nice, right, great, appreciable ... but the Natives?
You are right, the US didn't give back part of the continent to the Natives. A sad moment in US history for sure. And I'm not sure what that has to do with the Confederacy founding itself on slavery and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans to protect it. Seems more of a red herring there.

And why did the north need to abolish the economical base of the southern states before the war? It's like saying Northeastern states should stop eating citrus to hamstring the economies of the south... What good does that do for Northern states financially to hurt the US economy? That doesn't really make sense especially when the South's economy was weaker already. What abolitionists said the end of slavery was needed as a financial move to hurt the south before the war?

The northern states were taking time to abolish slavery during the Revolutionary war, how was that political? They were fighting against allowing slavery from the start of the nation. Finally agreeing on compromises with it when it was going to be something that divided the US as soon as the rev war was over.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,356
Seattle
#80
It is complicated.

On one hand, we can not compare US slavery with Nazism for one simple reason, in 1861 slavery was widespread in the world. 40% of Brazilian population were slaves, for example. So, we are talking not about criminals, but about people who lived and thought differently.

But, we can not say, "these are people from the past, their way of thinking was as different from us as that of Egyptian pharaohs", either, because, oddly, people here are in the habit of not letting go of old institutions. Take the cult of the Founding Fathers, who, great as they were, still owned slaves and doing a great job for their compatriots, still could not foresee nor planned to organize everything for us, starting with electoral system and ending with the constitution.

People have a peculiar habit of not letting go of things archaic, this is why the faces of the Confederate statues are not connected only with the people who lived, fought, and died 150+ years ago.

They might be connected with something sinister that came later, the KKK, the "not for coloreds" signs. Or with the Loving vs Virginia, the case that was decided by the Supreme Court only in 1967. (The laws banning interracial marriage were removed 100+ years after Appomattox...)

They might be connected with the governor of Arkansas using the National Guard trying to block the desegregation of schools in Little Rock.

So you get my point, half of the country looks at the statues and sees the handsome faces of their doomed generals (and General Lee was such a decent fellow!), and half of the country views - maybe not the slavery, they don't remember that - but over a century of segregation and discrimination, of humiliation, and this is something their grandparents can still remember and tell them about.

On the other hand, the statues are beautiful...

In USSR, after the angry mob removed the monuments to Dzerzhinsky, Lenin and other revolutionaries after the coup of 1991, they were not destroyed, merely moved to one park.

Maybe something similar should be done here? Move them all to one park? We are slowly intermarrying, changing, one day racism would be the thing of very old past, or so I hope.
 
Likes: Mortari

Similar History Discussions