"General Lee Statue removed?" Topic

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 1858

What truly angers me about this is that this quote has constantly been tagged with the additional comment of, "well he still hated slavery and was always against slavery."

Ok…well….great….but he sure as heck wasn't exactly being inclusive now was he? I'm not taking anything away from Lincoln's greatness as an American or from the bravery of Union soldiers who fought the war. I am merely trying to level the playing field here. "Being against slavery" is rather hollow and diluted wouldn't you say, when in every other aspect you declare another color of people to be wholly inferior and to be not even fit to mix with other colors of people? Geez people, yeah ok so we all now agree 100% that owning other human beings is a horrifically evil concept. But is it all that much less horrific to have a theory that another color of skin is inferior to yours, to the degree that they are not even fit to MIX with your kind and should simply go away?

Please stop quoting southern leaders' remarks with regards to white supremacy. Please do not tell me that white supremacy is a southern legacy. It is a NATIONAL legacy. NATIONAL. If you are going to take down confederate statues, then you had better also take down every statue of every northern leader from that time as well. And also General McClellan who had no interest in freeing the slaves. And also most Union soldiers who were fighting first and foremost to preserve the union of the existing states.

White supremacy is a NATIONAL legacy. But you're not allowed to say that in these horrifically politically correct, "good guy" vs. "bad guy" times we live in.

On the one hand, Ole Abe may have felt they were inferior to whites, but he fought to keep the union intact and liberated the slaves.

On the other hand, the Confederate states thought blacks were inferior, wanted to keep them enslaved, wanted to expand the practice, and fought to do so.

Yep, they definitely seem equivalent.

Baranovich

So what made Lincoln change his mind? Did in fact change his mind or was it some political ploy that would have become apparent if he had lived?
Why did he go through the aggravation of getting the 13th Amendment passed if he was an unreconstructed racist?

Genuine questions.

In my view people are allowed to change, presumably he did.

As for Southern leaders remarks on white supremacy. Sorry, I'll quote them till hell freezes.

Why? Because they said them and as far as I know very few of them admitted it was wrong! However, that's not the whole issue. I have been coming here for a dozen years or more and on threads like this one I still meet people who have the strange idea that slavery and white supremacy were not the prime cause of the War.

Sure my Irish ancestors would have been as racist as hell and no dobut ready with a rope in the Draft Riots but a lot of them died for the Union. And yes I mean that, the Union, not to free slaves. To them, they were an incidental.

However the War, caused by Secession, was a direct result of a complete desire to maintain and expand slavery and therefore white supremacy. That lays squarely at the door of men like Alexander Stephens, not Lincoln.

One last thing, White Supremacy is indeed a national legacy and kudos to you for coming out and saying it!

If you could go back 200 years and take a poll, I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world in general would say their race was superior to all others.

Good points muggins and trajanus.

Some of the points about no one complaining in the 60's is a little disingenuous given those most likely to complain in the 60's in southern states would have run into State endorsed violence run by the likes of Eugene Connor or far worse.

Perhaps Sheridan should have been the occupation commander of the whole of the south and not just the fifth. Some of these problems might not exist today.

Thanks muggins, Cornerstone speech noted. I would like to add that a large part of this speech deals with money issues. I freely admit Stephens had no qualms about asserting his opinion that one race was superior to another and that he was glad his confederacy was open about maintaining slavery. However, the USA's Declaration of Independence asserted 'all men are created equal' yet happily assumed that this did not include people from Africa and for most of the civil war continued to have slaves.

Towards the end of the war you had the USA emancipating slaves in their states. Alternatively, at the very end of the war you had the CSA beginning to look towards freeing some slaves in order to continue to fight to preserve their nation: and R E Lee was instrumental in this movement. Specifically, his letter of 18 February 1865 link led to the CSA agreeing (I admit narrowly and with reluctance) to that proposal although I understand that the few slaves who were recruited under this measure never went into action.

Are there a lot of monuments to Alexander Stephens?

The statues being taken down in many cases are of individuals who didn't support slavery or own slaves. Recently you had Confederate Postmaster John H. Reagan, who immediately after the war called for freed slaves to be given the right to vote. And Albert Sidney Johnston, who as I understand was opposed to secession.

Baronovich, much of what you say has merit. I've seen that TR is being judged a racist recently. As you say, he was a product of his time and I believe its unfair to judge him by the same standards as today. TR also fought alongside the 10th Cavalry at San Juan Hill, and did not hesitate to praise their courage and ability. TR was also the first president to invite a black man to dinner at the White House and took some pretty severe criticism for allowing his teenage daughter to sit at the same table as George Washington Carver. So we have some agreement on that point.

However, the idea that only one side is separating good guys from bad guys according to a politically correct (my words) formula isn't accurate.

The whole point of white supremacy is to literally separate good guys from bad guys based on race and perceived racial characteristics. I cannot sympathize with that line of thought, nor can I forget the actions of Neo-Nazis and the Klan in America. That's not benign and I'm sure you'll agree that there is no moral equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose them. The account boasting about whipping a black woman for being saucy says it all. Do we need to bring accounts of lynchings in order to explain the Klan?

Is the current hysteria over Confederate monuments unfair? Maybe. But as long the Klan is claiming those monuments for their own, and are not rebuked, I can only assume that those who admire Southern heritage are willing to allow it to happen. That's their own fault.

The Cornerstone Speech (and others like it) is irrefutable evidence the war was about slavery.

The monument dedications posted above (and others) are irrefutable evidence the monuments were put up to glorify white superiority.

Yet we still see the "whatabout Lincoln" and "whatabout slaves being allowed to be cannon fodder in a war already lost" and "whatabout whatabout whatabout".

For people who think the general public is uninformed about history, perhaps we just need a big mirror.

The notion that I can somehow prevent white supremacists from liking confederate statues is absurd. So the argument that I somehow failed to do that impossible thing, so therefore you get to conveniently dismiss my opinion as being invalid, is equally absurd.

One is saying that white supremacists have taken over the statues and so now they have become symbols of racism even if they originally weren't. Another is saying that it is impossible that the meaning people give the statues could have changed in the last 100+ years since they were erected.

I certainly do not see the Cornerstone speech as "irrefutable evidence the war was about slavery" given that a large part of it is concerned with money issues as I mentioned above. Furthermore, when the war started and until almost the end, the USA continued to maintain slavery in several of its states. Specifically, the 13th amendment was not passed until January 1865 and did not get ratified until December 1865 when Lincoln was dead.

Albino Squirrel, you can most certainly speak out against the Klan and the Neo-Nazis. Don't let them claim what you love. They've already done it with every cross-burning and lynching. It may be inconvenient, but that's the situation.

You know the saying: "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Heather Heyer gave her life for that principal. She's a patriot.

If people cannot stand up to Neo-Nazi's and the Klan, then who cares about those monuments?

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell.""

This was the cause of the rupture and present revolution

It says it right there. It's not fake news. Please read it.

I have read all of the Cornerstone speech. I feel you are placing too much importance on one part of one speech by one man from one side of the conflict. I think it is important to consider statements and actions (including inaction) of others from both sides.
That speech alone may be sufficient to justify removal of any statues of Stephens, if there are any, but it doesn't seem sufficient to remove any and all statues and monuments dedicated to others who participated in the conflict or served the CSA in defence of what they considered to be their country.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers."

From the Georgia Declaration of causes of secession

link

The link has it in its entirety, as well as a few other states.

The reason the South chose to seceded in 1860 was the election of Lincoln and his stated aims of refusing to allow slavery in the territories, which both side saw as the end of slavery (IMO your mileage may vary)

Quuaama, the Cornerstone stuff is in reply to your (mythological) belief that the war wasn't fought over slavery. That's obviously only part of why the statues are being taken down, the other part is obviously the huge number of examples and details as to why the statues were put up in the first place (white superiority) and their continued use by tiki torch wielding Nazis.

BW1959,

You sir, are a star! That's the web site, or a very similar one, that I referred to higher up the thread, as the one I keep having to drag out every time we get into these "surely it wasn't about slavery?" debates and was too idle to do it again.

And yes it was about money too. When your entire national wealth as a separate nation is going to be built around a sole capital asset of black people, you bet your life it's going to be around money! The "value" of slaves was enormous but only in terms of exchange between slave states, that's why expansion was vital to the enterprise.

Wulfgar, that's still ridiculous. Now amount of me saying neo-NAZIs are bad will make them stop liking confederate statues. Nobody in here has said that neo-NAZIs are good. I'm sure an incredibly small people who are opposed to removing the statues are neo-NAZIs. You're just using that to convince yourself that other people's opinions don't count because they haven't done something impossible.

Does that mean that until you can make a violent group like antifa stop calling for the monuments to come down, you can't support them being taken down?

No, Albino Squirrel, there's a reason that Neo-Nazis and the Klan have taken the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol. They've used it at thousands of lynchings and cross-burnings, and the fans of Southern Heritage allowed it to happen, and tacitly agreed with the practice by saying nothing. We all saw the Battle Flag being carried next to the swastika at Charlottesville.

Now they're using monuments as a way of making their point about white supremacy. If you don't like it, complain to the Klan. Or say nothing and let them be co-opted. That one will be on you.

Or just tear them down. After reading all of the denial and whinging on this thread, even in the face of documented historical evidence, I don't really care if the monuments come down or not. That's a big change from my starting position.

I believe that a majority of Confederate soldiers were fighting because, "Ya'll are down here." However, the stated purpose of their Confederate government was the right of the individual states to keep and perpetuate slavery in the new territories.

Key Point: With the co-opting of these symbols by white supremacists, the rules of the game are changing. People are letting it happen, and they want to blame anyone and everyone but themselves. Why become a tool of the white supremacists? Do something to save your heritage.

So you think if I write a nicely worded letter to the KKK and ask them to stop supporting confederate monuments, you think they will do that?

Yes, you're being ridiculous.

But perhaps I'll write them a letter anyway, and then I'm sure you'll stop making this ridiculous argument.

That might be a nice start, Albino Squirrel. At least you'd be directing your frustration in the right direction. Or you can remain complacent and the monuments you revere will be taken down by governors, mayors, city councils, and college administrations.

You're on the wrong side of history with this topic. This all began when a white supremacist murdered several people in a black church. At the end of the day, this discussion is really about racial politics, and that is why people are refusing to accept historical sources as fact.

That isn't an accusation of racism. Its just wondering why anyone would permit a bunch of loser white supremacists to hijack their history, and then blame those who oppose them.

muggins said "Quuaama [sic], the Cornerstone stuff is in reply to your (mythological) belief that the war wasn't fought over slavery."
I find it odd, and a bit offensive that when you present evidence in the form of the Cornerstone speech it is "irrefutable evidence the war was about slavery" yet points that I raise are not addressed and instead I am charged with having mythological beliefs. I cannot see that the USA embarked on a moral crusade to free slaves because they did not say so at the time and sometimes said the opposite. Some specific examples (some mentioned previously) include: Lincoln in his inaugural address specifically says it would be unlawful to interfere with slavery and denounces "the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes"; the emancipation proclamation is used as a measure to punish CSA states by failing to free any slaves in the USA; several USA states maintained slavery until long into the war; 13th amendment not passed until January 1965 and not ratified until after the war; and Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers at the beginning of the war makes no mention that they are going to free any slaves.

Even if it can be demonstrated the USA went to war with the CSA to abolish slavery, I fail to see how this justifies the removal, vandalism or destruction of any historic monuments. This would seem to be especially so in the case of statues of CSA soldiers who were serving what they considered to be their country and were in most instances pardoned by the USA after the war.

Incidentally, I suspect that protestors may have some difficulty in removing this monument link if only because of its sheer size.

I have enjoyed reading through these posts and not to take sides, but does no one else find it humorous that the same liberal sounding arguments for the removal of the statues most likely identify with the very political party which erected them in the first place. 😁

"Even if it can be demonstrated the USA went to war with the CSA to abolish slavery, I fail to see how this justifies the removal, vandalism or destruction of any historic monuments."

Quuaama, the Cornerstone stuff is in reply to your (mythological) belief that the war wasn't fought over slavery. That's obviously only part of why the statues are being taken down, the other part is obviously the huge number of examples and details as to why the statues were put up in the first place (white superiority) and their continued use by tiki torch wielding Nazis.

"I have enjoyed reading through these posts and not to take sides, but does no one else find it humorous that the same liberal sounding arguments for the removal of the statues most likely identify with the very political party which erected them in the first place. 😁"

This comes up often as a talking point – obviously the parties have changed, I'd suggest you research the civil rights movement and the southern strategy.

I would argue most Southern democrat elites survived and did not walk out of the party in 1964. They just changed tactics to work within a changed political arena. The more outspoken who would not eventually withered on the vine. Only in the last two decades have conservatives been able to win over the South, mainly due to economic growth.

My main question is not whether or not the statues should be removed, but the timing. Why now and not anytime during the past administration or even before? Was it really not an issue before? I have seen these statues all my life and had never really given them much thought before now. So what is really driving this movement?

Leadjunky….if you surf local news in the web you'll see that it'snt only a US trend but a world wide one..of course there is a global disquienting strategy from strong powers that use violent and repulsive small crowds of people which somebody call them civil right activists even if, in practice, they aim to supress civil rights…to put pressure in a violent way to Local Councils and Mayors..Slavery, COnfederacy ecc…having nothing to do with that..i imagine that those gesticulating thugs trowing paint to statues of generals, fathers of nations, saints in USA, Spain , South Africa had never read anything on those matters…they are a sort of ninjas sent to try to overturn democratic choices of the majority of people and seize power by other means or, in other cases, reinforce by threatening public opinion , autoritarian/corrupted régimes

Lead junky, that's an interesting idea, but not really based on the facts – I'd recommend a read of at least this page:
link

Regarding the timing of statues coming down, it's always been an issue. Recall the young woman who climbed a flag pole during the last administration to pull down the Confederate flag from over South Carolina.

Regardless, I think I'm safe to say, that all of us believe the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, and groups that agree with or are like those types are repugnant, etc. To say the least.

But as we see, for better or worse the Founding Fathers advocated freedom of speech. And yes we all know many of the Founding Fathers and many in the Colonies were slave owners. Some have said let the Neo-Nazis, KKK, etc. exercise their freedom of speech right. And then everyone will see how just plain crazy, stupid, etc. their beliefs are.

Of course most know what that types' dogma, "policies", etc., are. And doubt they will draw many new members to their ranks. As again, very few think as they do. Those types a very vocal, very much lunatic fringe of America society.

And I'd think and all here will agree here. Simply put :

1) Freedom of Speech = Good

2) Slavery = Bad

But again, we can't forget our history, we can't deny what happened. Whether good or bad. It is part of history …

"Regardless, I think I'm safe to say, that all of us believe the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, and groups that agree with or are like those types are repugnant, etc. To say the least."..yes but among this company of freaks you cannot avoid to count also the animals that are protesting, insulting, vandalising in all major cities in the name of those supposed to be "civil rights"..being of marxist , relativist , no global , mafia ideology they are certainly not better than the human types that you listed before…

ITALWARS you are correct. You forgot to add anarchists to the list. The anarchists are in the street not only to protest statues, but these are the same people who protest the government any chance they get. Be it the G-20 Summit, Columbus Day, free speech on college campuses, or against the President in general. But the more they gain notoriety, the more main stream centrist people will see them for what they are and will vote appropriately come next election.

"Many sides", right?

Drawing equivalences between people protesting statues put up to subjugate other humans and the KKK and nazis isn't a good look.

i think that the people agressing statues are stupid..but in fact they want to destroy the democracy and they have a marxist relativist vision and ideology..no difference with nazism…Marxist which symbols are still present on flags that you can easily see on TV ..they are the equivalent of nazist as they are the same root and more or less same ideology…

USAF..You forgot to add anarchists to the list.
unfortunatly those self appointed today's anarchist have nothing to do with true anarchist movment ..those for example that killed tyrants in the 19 c. /early 20 c. or those that fought not only vs fascism but vs Comunists during SCW ..they had at least a certain ammount of idealism and could be , in a certain way, respected..
those of todays are rich people, sons of rich people but in service of political Mafia

I'm just now reading a book on Napoleon and came across the following caption under a picture of a statue: "The construction of Trajan's column in the Place Vendome. The column's imperial symbolism led to its being destroyed in 1814, replaced in the 1830s but destroyed again in 1871, and finally restored in 1875."

How easy mere objects come in and out of vogue. History repeating itself. Nothing is truely ever final.

Surely Legion 4 meant there are no neo-NAZI sympathizers HERE, and that everyone HERE can agree that freedom of speech is good and slavery is bad. Obviously there exist some neo-NAZIs out there who think racism is okay, and some violent protesters who think freedom of speech is bad. But hopefully there are relatively few of both, and there's no reason why either group should influence our own opinions on the subject. It's silly to say "your opinion is bad because there is a bad person somewhere who has that opinion".

"Nothing is truly ever final"

i.imgur.com/UX4lal2.gifv

Albino Squirrell the point is exactly what you said
here, and all over USA…people can talk in a moderate and interesting way about what is happening…also if i disagree with many things ..i must admit that i learnt a lot of facts reading this topic…some ones very complicated for a good historical analysis.
But unfortunatly the people on the spot and protesting (and i must admiot also the others) are small minority but the media give them too much importance and the mayors and coucils succumb cowardly to their violence and threats..if i was a mayor i would have called the National Guard and dispperse them in order to stamp out the virus at firts sign and, doing so, respect the will of the public opinion

What are you going to do Italian Wars? Believe what your lying eyes and ears tell you or believe what muggings tells you to believe?

Muggins, you just proved my point.

Yep! Lots of people call it progress.

Otto, I'm not telling people what to believe, the first person accounts are. That's called learning history ;)

I'm sorry muggins but you do try and tell people what to believe. You put forward your evidence as "irrefutable" and lambast any opposing evidence or viewpoint as mythological. That is not learning history.
Neither is justifying removal of statues on current events such as "use by tiki torch wielding Nazis". Just because people who hold a view that is repugnant to you and many others align themselves with saving the statues does not mean saving the statues is in itself a repugnant goal. The statues are, in the main, of people who are well-regarded and admired by people of varying disposition for skills or characteristics they displayed during their lifetimes.

The facts have already been presented to you multiple times. Talking in circles with opinions and wild hypotheticals is fun but eventually you have to read the real history.

"What are you going to do Italian Wars? Believe what your lying eyes and ears tell you or believe what muggings tells you to believe?"
Otto i believe what the medias and their palace guards like you do not want that i see

In a recent poll by NPR, 62% of Americans said Confederate statues should stay up, to only 27% saying they should come down. So well over twice as many people want them up.

More African Americans said they should stay up than be taken down.

In the same poll, only 4% of people said they mostly agree with the white supremacy movement (and only 5% mostly agree with antifa). Honestly, both of those are higher than I would have hoped.

At any rate, the idea that the many people equate the statues with white supremacy is clearly incorrect. The numbers just don't add up.

This country is in a state of total crisis – economic/social/political, but if you listen to the media everything is just fine, all the REALLY BAAAAD things are happening somewhere else. So you're supposed to have this head in the clouds attitude, perpetual happy thoughts about how 100% wonderful America supposedly is, while they try to terrify you and keep you constantly scared by showing you tragic events and accidents and misfortunes of people with all the drama of an Imex theater experience.

It's all platitudes and drama for the sake of ratings profits, nothing more.

That is part of the problem. The media doesn't really care if they destroy the full context of our history.

They are paid to get it wrong on PURPOSE. They are paid to make the confederacy = nazism = all the same thing. Lee = Hitler = both guys pretty much stood for the same thing.

That is what is happening. The full context of history is being crushed on the nightly news, methodically and systematically.

And we wonder why a southern factory worker in Alabama who loves his southern heritage might be offended that 1,000 miles away some yuppie professional in a shirt and tie in NYC sipping coffee at a Starbucks is all for the removal of confederate statues 1,000 miles away? A "successful" person who has probably never set foot on a Civil War battlefield, never mind picked up a book about the war (outside of what they were forced to read in college to pass a test).

When I say all this it's not hyperbole. It's the reality of what we live in.

When you have a media and government that are bought and paid for by corporations and by the donor class, THIS is the result. This is what you end up with. A media that happily lumps the confederacy in with Nazi Germany because after all, it's all "baaaaaaaaaaad" stuff right?

OH, yes let's just Disneyfy everything down to good guys vs. bad guys and we can all sing in harmony and hold hands and bake pies for each other, right?

I don't know where my country went. My country doesn't EXIST anymore.

It does seem to all be about culture war. To many, especially in the south, those figures are an important part of their cultural heritage. To some other people they are something else. But why go out of your way to attack someone else's culture?

Of the many lessons the Civil War can teach us, surely one of the most important is that with different cultural beliefs and values can all live together as Americans united by the core values and beliefs that make us all Americans. This is more important now than ever. I'm just not entirely sure specifically what values and beliefs unite us all, or the sane ones at least.

"When you have a media and government that are bought and paid for by corporations and by the donor class, THIS is the result."
you 're perfectly aware that the interest and influence of the corporation it's now at stakes ..so they use thugs agressing police and statues and other illegal means as a sort of less violent coup to retake power that the majority of people has recuperated…

This thread is rapidly approaching peak tinfoil hat status – but to go another route, if the statues are all about honor and legacy etc, why do you think there are almost zero statues honoring slaves / former slaves / freed men and women in the south?

(Regarding the NPR poll – that is a national poll, and yeah I'm guessing its accurate on a national basis – but the places where the statues are, Richmond is over 50% african american, New Orleans is over 60% african american – surely 'states rights and local control' extends to the people that actually have to see these things).