"General Lee Statue removed?" Topic

I can't say I'd be sorry to see Rhodes get the treatment he deserved. No single man else did so much to mess up my country, not even Vervoedt.

@foxwesel – Bridgewater

Cromwell's failure was to attempt to impose his son as the next Lord Protector – which looked suspiciously like King making. Had the succession been better handled then doubtless the great Republic would have continued – and he would have truly been The Greatest Englishman for freeing the nation forever from monarchies.

As it was we reverted to a Kingdom, but curbed well and true the rights of Kings so they ruled but in name and knew well the boundaries of their power.

So I guess we need to start taking down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson since they were rebels, too. It's a statue, not a celebration. It's a reminder for those who are interested enough to do some research and learn a little about history. Quite frankly it really gets my dander up* when people want to tear down reminders of our history.

These actions are not going to foster peace or understanding. They are not going to stop people from being bigots and haters (they don't need statues to remind them to hate). So what are they trying to achieve by these destructive actions?

*I hate getting my dander up, it takes so long to comb it back down.

Washington & Jefferson were on the right side of history. Until Britian reclaims its erring colonies their statues are quite safe.

I just find it odd how the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) only applied to slaves held in Confederate territory, but the states that today are called "border states", which were part of the Union since the war started*, were specifically excluded by name from having to free their slaves. Those slave-owning Union States continued to keep their slaves until after the war was over with, when the 13th Amendment was finally ratified and made into Law.

A small correction, Dan. Maryland (1864), Missouri (1865), Tennessee (1865), and West Virginia (1865) abolished slavery before the war ended. Kentucky and Delaware were the only hold outs until the 13th Amendment abolished slavery throughout the US. And the movement to abolish slavery was well underway in those states (slavery was already dying out; with nearly half of the blacks already freed).

As for the limited scope of the Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln had to balance the possible against the ideal.

…Aaaannndd after reading more of Lee's take on the whole matter through his own words… the man was not the kindly old chivalrous warrior both sides want to make him out to be, but just another aristocratic piece of human scum that led his countrymen to death by the hundreds of thousands for his own enrichment and elevation.

The more I learn about this the more disgusted I am at the people defending the confederate monuments. And the spineless among the northerners who didn't do more to fight this infection before it spread.

And yeah, at least Cromwell was fighting against a corrupt and out of control monarchy, the most questionable stuff came later. To even suggest the Confederacy was in the same ball-park is to me an actual attempt to erase history. Personal courage and occasional show of honor in individual confederate soldiers are the only things worth praising, the rest of it is all propaganda and needs to be treated as such.

Know who else likes to destroy statues and monuments they don't agree with? ISIS and the Taliban.

Just sayin'.

It's a statue, not a celebration. It's a reminder for those who are interested enough to do some research and learn a little about history.

If only it was so…

Unfortunately, the statues and symbols of the Confederacy have been long co-opted (dare I say hijacked) by first the Lost Causers, then the Segregationists and now the White Supremacists. In many cases, the statues themselves were erected more to honor the movement of the day (the Lost Cause and segregation) than the man himself. So the co-opting has been going on for a very long time.

Just a curious question: If the statues are to honor the great military commanders of the Confederacy (and only that), then why are there no statues in the South honoring Lee's foremost subordinate, James Longstreet? (A rhetorical question, I know…)

"Know who else likes to destroy statues and monuments they don't agree with? ISIS and the Taliban.

Just sayin'."

Cute, trying to get around discussion rules like that. If you want to insult people who disagree why not be more direct about it.

Germany also destroyed many Nazi monuments and many Soviet monuments have been left to rot, and for good reason considering the problems they area already having over there with political recidivism. But they aren't trying to hide or deny their history, the Taliban are.

Put the statues in a museum if you want to commemorate history. As has been said, Washington and Jefferson were fighting to create my country,
As were my ancestors who fought at Saratoga. We shouldn't commemorate those who were literally the enemy of the state. Arguments like comparing their removal to ISIS blasting out ancient ruins are not comparable either.

Lee and the other prominent confederates were used by proponents of the desegregation movement in the early 20th century. The statues at issue were erected at that time, often in historically African-American neighborhoods, to intimidate them. No matter how you feel about Lee's generalship, use of his image for such a purpose is not appropriate in the modern age.

Well Irish Marine let's ask our British cousins who Washington betrayed? I'm sure there was an oath taken by him in there somewhere.

I'm kind of with Irish Marine on this one with a minor caveat: I do not think that statues honoring confederate leaders belong on public land apart from battlefields they fought at (I.e. Gettysburg). Apart from being co-opted by proponents of Jim Crow laws, these folks fought against the United States of America. While we should not forget their prowess and sacrifice on the battlefield (hence battlefield monuments) in no way should they be held up as paragons of American virtue.

President Lincoln muddied the waters a little also. He wanted to view the south as misguided rather than traitorous. He fought to get amnesty for the majority of the soldiers of the south, though the final product was a little less forgiving than he wanted.

Most of the soldiers were pardoned and eventual returned as citizens. A lot of soldiers and many officers served in various positions in the US government after the war.

That isn't the standard way to treat traitors!

I myself find that my opinions are mixed on the subject, so I can understand why it is such a confusing issue.

Charlie 12,

Thanks so much for the correction. I was under the impression that most of them happened after the war ended. Excellent info, specially the dates.

What I constantly hear from people who should know better is that slavery simply ended everywhere with the Emancipation Proclamation, which is as far from the truth as anyone could possibly be.

Dan

Stryderg: "These actions are not going to foster peace or understanding … So what are they trying to achieve by these destructive actions?"

Exactly. I keep hearing from some people here on TMP that the statues should be removed because they want to uphold America and "American values". But I have yet to hear that much patriotism and or interest in the future of the country from the protesters. I only hear haters expressing their desire for payback. Protected racism.

We know that Northern states would never put a Robert E Lee statue in a park. And Southern states would never put up a statue of Union generals like Sherman, who Southerners probably view as a war criminal (though I'm sure there's probably one up north in his hometown).

But that's what happens when you have a Republic like ours was supposed to be. Each state was supposed to decide those local things for their own citizens and not dictate the other states on what their local laws*, statues or leaders should be.

Well, unless we want a distant capital (or people from other countries) to impose on all our states the exact same historical biases, traditions and the same so-called "values".

Dan
* That's why the other states haven't declared war on Colorado for its permissive drug laws. :)

Guys, I did say this was an unwise thread, why don't we end this now while we're all still friends and before it gets out of control. Too much heat in this issue.

I agree with nsolomon99. There is so much I want to say but I am keeping my mouth shut on this subject.

I agree … there is more than just one reason, argument, etc., going on here. Just let it go … better to watch the media circus around this … for better or worse … than make comments here. For everyone's own good …

Plus making this a "learning" opportunity to read up on the ACW, etc. E.g. A friend of mine a Doctor who was born Greece. He told me with all the talk about North Korea, etc. in the media. He looked the history of the Korean War online, etc.

Then asked me about my time in the ROK '84-'85. To get my take on the history, events, etc., of all this. He was more than happy add to his knowledge of this subject.

The only thing I worry about as we remove the statutes and no longer teach about the Civil War is that the people of this country will forget what happened and will relive it another day. Over 600,000 people died and millions lost limbs in the war to keep the union together. Imagine how many millions would die if a new civil war was fought for state rights or political reasons.

"Each state was supposed to decide those local things for their own citizens and not dictate the other states on what their local laws*, statues or leaders should be."

And that is EXACTLY what is happening! The Feds aren't doing this, the city councils in their respective cities have voted to move the statues to museums (mostly). Columbia, SC was at the forefront when they voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of their state capitol, and New Orleans and Charrlottesville did the same with their Reb statues. Now Kentucky is voting on the same thing. So what's the problem?

Oh, and +100 to Irish Marine. We have found common ground at last!!! 8)=

When it comes to the Confederates, General George Thomas, the Rock of Chickauga, summed it up rather well 149 years ago

"The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them"

— George Henry Thomas, November 1868

I agree Murphy. Political correctness dictates that we may not respond.

I find it sad that this is the case. Nothing good will come from the removal of the statues. Nothing good will come from continuing this discussion.

We are reopening old wounds at the same time new wounds are being suffered.

I appeal to all to end this thread now… for the sake of unity of this community.

Joe Collins

As an Englishman we do have a saying "A man is known by the company he keeps", but that's by the by.

So maybe if our colonial cousins look at the symbolism of those seeking to retain the statues…. No. That would require too much introspection and I will not ask them to go that far.

On second thoughts, in for a penny in for a pound!

Is juxtaposition of symbolism the reason why those vociferous defenders of Southern "heritage" have become reticent on the issue? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Nice quote 138Squadron.

The big wonder in all of this for me is getting it tangled up with the Civil War in terms of this Board.

While there undoubtedly would be many who actually fought for the South, whose personal views on race would be identical to those being expressed by groups and individuals present in Charlottesville, it is undeniable that those same groups and individuals are using the removal of this and other statues as a convenience to promote their agenda.

Not just matters of Black v White but White v Everyone else.

It is not some frothy PC, anti Flag, anti heritage, anti history nonsense to disagree with those who believe that the USA should be inhabited only by the same racial and religious groupings that stepped off the Mayflower. To reach what they desire, even the America of the Founding Fathers would have to be considered tainted and abandoned.

To even imagine a cogent argument to that level is to enter the mad house, let's bin this and get back to the history of 1861 – 1865

What appears to be missed by many in this discussion is that many of those calling for the removal of the Confederate statues are also calling for the sanitization of currency and other public displays of any historical figure deemed to be unworthy of modern respect.

That includes Washington, Jefferson, and any other Founder or subsequent who was associated with slavery in nearly any way.

It also includes figures who were involved in the Indian Wars and early exploration and colonization of the Americas.

Each victory in their drive to make history conform to their views only preps them for the next battle.

It is a great comfort to me in these revisionist days that my ancestors managed to wait until the early 20th Century to flee the oppression of their Austro-Hungarian overlords and emigrate to the US. Thus leaving me free of the blood staining the hands of both the racists who created the United States through slavery and the brutal subjugation of the peoples they found here (to the revisionists both are villains – there are almost no good guys in their view).

Although due to the fact that their was a Slovene volunteer battalion fighting under Maximilian there is a slight possibility that that an ancestor or remote relative oppressed some citizens of Mexico…

Just wanna say to those arguing about this preserving history. Statues don't teach history, and they're not put up to tell the truth. They're a form of propaganda and that's always been the case.

If you want to the history to be taught then promote it yourselves, just don't try to pretty up the Confederacy.

Oh and please stop this 'Oh those evil liberals revising history' nonsense. History is always being fought over by everyone, because everyone is after their own agenda. Everyone is scum, everyone is a hypocrite, and you're not sitting on some special moral high ground just because the version of history you prefer is under attack.

These statues were put up to whitewash history and perpetuate the poison politics of the confederacy, and judging by some of the comments here and everywhere on the internet people are only too happy to be suckered in.

is there any difference with the blowing of Buddhas statues or ISIS destructions?

there is all over the world an harsh repression vs what C caribe called "values" and what could also be called Regionalism, identities …i cannot understand the meaning of destroying art ..eve the destroynig of Lybian or Irak dictators statues is absurd

Last remnants of long dead civilizations vs propaganda icons of still ongoing political struggles?

What's the difference between the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Continental Army in the AWI? They're both freedom fighters right? :)

What's the difference between the ISIS and coal companies, I mean they're both blowing up the landscape to sell it off right?

Every house demolished is an act of cultural terrorism! Every car scrapped is an attempt to erase automotive history! Every piece of toast eaten is an attack on the glorious history of agriculture! SHAME!!!!

And they're not necessarily being destroyed, just taken down.

As an Englishman we do have a saying "A man is known by the company he keeps", but that's by the by.

So maybe if our colonial cousins look at the symbolism of those seeking to retain the statues…. No. That would require too much introspection and I will not ask them to go that far.

On second thoughts, in for a penny in for a pound!

Is juxtaposition of symbolism the reason why those vociferous defenders of Southern "heritage" have become reticent on the issue? Enquiring minds would like to know.

138th…
Maybe it's because no matter how much one can sit and discuss it in a rational mature manner, and try to show you their view of it, your mind is already made up by what you want to believe and thus are unwilling to approach the subject with any form of openness or neutral objectivity on the subject. So why should we waste our time?

"In many cases, the statues themselves were erected more to honor the movement of the day (the Lost Cause and segregation) than the man himself. So the co-opting has been going on for a very long time"

Can anyone actually give me some quotes that support the oft stated 'fact; that the statues were put up to support segregation? All the monument speeches I've read dwell on honoring the soldiers who fought in the war.

I find it odd that the people who actually fought against Lee honored him as a worthy opponent who stood up for his convictions, while numerous people today revile him in their ignorance.

"The statues at issue were erected at that time, often in historically African-American neighborhoods, to intimidate them."

Can you back that up? Most monuments were put up in cemeteries and town squares.

"When it comes to the Confederates, General George Thomas, the Rock of Chickauga, summed it up rather well 149 years ago"

Well, he would say that. he betrayed his country after all. You know…Virginia. :)

It sure would be nice if each side would at least try to listen to the other, but it looks like many are stuck in some sort of loop, repeating the same cookie-cutter slogans and accusations, even when an attempt is made to reply to their points with some level of civility.

Oh well, I'm not wasting another minute on this.

Dan

there is a wall painting in Rome of a famous Italian soccer player, Totti, who while playing for the local AS Rome team..opressed with his goals other clubs….as it happens that i'm a supporter of S.S Lazio ..i feel opressed by this painting and in the future i'll be certainly entitled to ask his removal

"The statues at issue were erected at that time, often in historically African-American neighborhoods, to intimidate them"
in quite a few cases unecessary and above un asked cases ..anti-racism dogmas are a subtile or at best unconscious form of true racism

one day i'll post something that i have in mind from a lot of time..
a simple question:
"do you think that in the future wargame..miniature wargame..will be forbidden..because of his oppressive and unpolitically correct potential?"
if you think a little our miniatures have been spared by the world control of minds only because except some few nerds and immature guys like us nobody care and know about 28mm minis…but are they the different in their perfidy if compared with the statues of Lee or Rhodes?

@Cacique Caribe: Look back at your own posts in this thread and see if you can say that again without irony.

I mean, jeez the monument defenders keep dipping into the you're just like ISIS, you're trying to kill history, you're the real racists, you're the hypocrites, and anti-'political correctness' wells again and again. And you're pretending to school everyone else on civil debate while leaving in a huff because someone's not agreeing with you.

Dn Jackson

link

"This monument to Jackson lies atop what was once a majority-black area known as McKee Row. In 1914, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors confiscated the land from its black residents and granted it to the city. The city justified its action by noting its concern about the "rowdy" activity from McKee Row interfering with the Levy Opera showgoers. It also cited concern regarding the presence of young, presumably white, men "slumming" through the McKee Row neighborhood.

Jeffersonian disciple and journalist James Alexander rendered the connection between "rowdiness" and race explicit in his writings about McKee Row, remembering it as the site of "buildings of importance" that had tragically "declined into forlorn rookery," emblemized through the presence of " ‘Colonel Crack,' a demented but harmless Negro." To emphasize its punitive role vis-à-vis the black community, the statue itself was built over the former location of the Charlottesville jail. Panoptic and stern, the statue's function was made clear in its position proximal to the former location of a whipping post."

Dn Jackson:"Can you back that up? Most monuments were put up in cemeteries and town squares."

Town squares and places of government. The message was clear. "The Confederacy never left, we're still in charge and we won't let you forget it."

I mean, why else would the white supremacist movement be so interested in them? I can't think of a better reason.

Put the statues in a museum or in a battlefield or cemetery where they belong and have can have some actual context. But they shouldn't be in a place that says 'this is what we stand for'.

"Just wanna say to those arguing about this preserving history. Statues don't teach history, and they're not put up to tell the truth."

I'm sure the Vietnam Memorial isn't there to lie to people…and I am pretty damn sure that the memorials at Dachau with the names of the dead aren't there to "push a political agenda"….

But hey Wolfgang…to each his own, right?

Italwars: PM sent to answer your question good sir.

No, the ones you mentioned are genuine memorials with the proper context presented. But again,it's there in the name; they are memorials, not monuments and not statues.

I'm not sure which is more insulting, that you think I can't tell the difference or that you can't draw a line between something like the Vietnam Memorial and a statue glorifying the leadership of the Confederacy.

And let's just be crystal clear here, I don't think anyone here is saying anything about removing actual memorials to the dead, especially not in cemeteries or battlefields.

The problem as I see it is with public monuments in nation/state owned areas and endorsed by the government that make a pointed political statement. Especially ones venerated by political movements that are trying to press their far right fascist ideologies on the rest of the country.

Put them somewhere appropriate with appropriate context or scrap them, I don't really care. THEY DO NOT BELONG IN CITY SQUARES AND IN FRONT OF CENTERS OF GOVERNMENT. If you think I'm trying to get rid of history or am unnecessarily disrespecting the dead, it is entirely a construct of your own imagination.

Would you please try arguing my points rather than pretend I am one of the caricatures of a human being spun out of whole cloth by the assholes in the right wing media and arguing past me. It would be nice for a change.

Should Penn. State put the Joe Paterno statue back because of 'heritage and tradition', but with a note saying how he and others covered for his friend who was a serial child rapist because it would have damaged the football program otherwise?

Maybe we should keep the Lee statue up but with more plaques saying stuff about how he viewed and treated slaves and free blacks, how he was responsible for one of the worst losses of life on American soil, how he propped up an ideology that continues to poison the country to this day? That this man was the definition of the banality of evil and had no redeeming qualities that weren't superficial to the extreme. Would that make you happy? Is that a solution for you guys?

As noted, have no ancestors to justify or excuse in this – just an appreciation for my country's history.

Mentioned this discussion to my bother and he reminded me that the American Constitution was written with an opt out for states that wished to do so after having initially joined. At that point considering Lee, Jefferson Davis, or any other Southerner a traitor becomes justifiable only if you consider Lincoln's use of force to maintain the United States in contradiction to that clause to be the morally correct choice.

The fact that Lincoln had actually violated the Constitution may have had a a bearing on his pardon of so many of those who fought for the Confederacy. Obviously not the usual practice with traitors – witness the English responses after the various Irish and Sottish rebellions against their rule in the period prior to the America Civil War…