Tearing down confederate monuments

Status
Closed

Offspring

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
7,923
România
#21
I love how some apply domino theory to statue removal. If you remove one statue, you risk ending up with no more statues, so all statutes should be equally defended. :amuse:
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#22
The South was on the wrong side in the Civil War and has been squirming and weaseling around for about 150 years in defense of the indefensible. Just reading the various Secession Statements by a number af the southern states is good evidence of their base motive: the preservation of human chattel slavery. These were not "cavaliers" or "noble knights", but slave owners concerned about losing money. The (Im)moral gymnastics they performed to justify the inexcusable were extreme and would have failed every logic test known to mankind.

Simply put, they committed treason and it was the South that started the Civil War, not the north. It was the War of Southern Aggression, nothing more and nothing less. How anyone in their right mind can honor those who led troops to kill American soldiers and give them places of honor in the public square is beyond me.

As to the statues and other southern symbolism, I am in favor of removing them to other non-publicly owned (and paid for) museums, cemeteries or privately-owned sculpture gardens. There's no need to destroy them, but there is also no need to honor them by placing them in prominent public parks. I note that there are a number of confederate "heroes" (not heroes of mine, mind you) who have statues in the US Capitol. These should beremoved immediately, if not sooner and similarly treated. We do not honor traitors to the United States of America in any way shape shape or form.

For those who point to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they too were slave owners, I only note that those two did not make war against America. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, et al did, to their eternal disgrace.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2010
5,175
DC
#23
I love how some apply domino theory to statue removal. If you remove one statue, you risk ending up with no more statues, so all statutes should be equally defended. :amuse:
For those who point to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they too were slave owners, I only note that those two did not make war against America.
That is the line about them now (For some), the Line I hear from most is not about war on America, it is about fighting a war to against abolishing slavery.

Thank god, DC is a Federal, we would become the next target of violence.

Mayor, D.C. Councilmembers Want Statue Of Confederate General On Federal Land Removed: DCist

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/dc-marijuana-map/
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,983
Caribbean
#25
The South was on the wrong side in the Civil War and has been squirming and weaseling around for about 150 years in defense of the indefensible. Just reading the various Secession Statements by a number af the southern states is good evidence of their base motive: the preservation of human chattel slavery. These were not "cavaliers" or "noble knights", but slave owners concerned about losing money. The (Im)moral gymnastics they performed to justify the inexcusable were extreme and would have failed every logic test known to mankind.
I don't think the South was on the "wrong" side. They were on their own side. Whose side is someone supposed to be on?

However, I do agree that trying to defend the southern position without defending slavery doesn't work and can end up sounding like weaseling. Their economic base was under threat and they took steps to protect it. That said, IMO, they way overestimated the threat, and took ill-advised steps.

However, a lot of the Southern statutes do not commemorate the lying and stupid politicians. Lee and Stonewall are common.

There is also an issue of whose state is it? The people who live in it or the people who don't? I can't think of any examples of controversy that involve white boys from Alabama "marching" up to Harlem to complain about a statute of Marcus Garvey.

]For those who point to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they too were slave owners, I only note that those two did not make war against America. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, et al did, to their eternal disgrace.
Simply put, George and Tom committed treason as much as the CSA. So, is it just a matter of who wins gets to rewrite the history?
 
Last edited:

Offspring

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
7,923
România
#26
If the UK conquers the US, they'll be able to tear down the statues of Tommy and George for being traitors, until then I don't see how their statues can be removed because they are traitors. You're a traitor if you lose after you betray. You're a hero if you win after you betray. I was under the impression that this has always been the case. Think about monarchies and empires and what happens when someone fails to usurp the throne versus what happens when they accomplish that goal and install a new dynasty.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,983
Caribbean
#28
If the UK conquers the US, they'll be able to tear down the statues of Tommy and George for being traitors, until then I don't see how their statues can be removed because they are traitors. You're a traitor if you lose after you betray. You're a hero if you win after you betray. I was under the impression that this has always been the case. Think about monarchies and empires and what happens when someone fails to usurp the throne versus what happens when they accomplish that goal and install a new dynasty.
Why does all that make me think of Oliver Cromwell? :)

So, right is a matter of who wins. The pesky south, despite having lost, won't shut up and stop being proud of themselves. :lol:
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions