"on the tearing down of statues" Topic

35th, the Boot Monument does not identify Arnold, nor does his plaque at West Point. His name is forever synonomous with treason despite his contributions before switching sides.

Contrast this with Stonewall Jackson's Arm, also recognized with a marker fully identifying him. He was very active in the fight against the U.S. Is there a difference? One is still idolized, the other barely remembered for his service. I have some good feelings about both of them despite their treasonous actions. Arnold was especially well treated by novelist Kenneth Roberts, whom I read as a kid. They are both part of the story of America. Statues may need some display of context and more info when they raise questions and objections, but leave them up, IMO

Tort, but we all know who the boot is for. I have no issue, he did good service before he traded sides. I have no animosity for Jackson. Would not have wanted to serve under him. From my reading, I would not have liked his personality.

If the loyalist/brits had won, I wonder how many statutes of him would we have today? 🤔

I too loved the Kenneth Roberts novels.

35th, I go to church with men like Jackson. Not much fun at parties, but in a fight you definitely want them at your side. You can kill them but you can never defeat them.

There are several such personalities active in the two helping Ministeries I used to do (before I stopped driving after dark): prison, and homeless. They are not particularly merciful, but offer tough love. But definitely love. The rest of us are more effective because they are there.

I'm a believer in democracy--and in law. If a statue, put up at public expense with taxpayer money on public public property--offends a subsequent generation, that new generation has every right--through their elected representatives--to remove it. They don't have a right to gather a mob and go freelance, any more than they can get a few people together an rob me instead of taxing me. It's an important distinction.

But destruction of public art, while it should be legal, may not be wise. Times and enemies change, and good art is not necessarily depiction of good people. I'd say the appropriate solution is to auction it off to people who will maintain it. You can always destroy. Creation and preservation are trickier.

In principle I am against tearing down of statues. Judged by today's standards, most Roman Emperor's ones wouldn't stand much scrutiny.

However, clearly the people in the country where the statue is must decide.

I personally like the fact that in London there are statues of both Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. I also like the fact that there is an excellent statue of Prince Charles Edward Stuart in Derby, the furthest south that his Jacobite Army reached in 1745.

Rod

This is TMP at its best, as allowing discussion. This reads like the script of a bunch of gents in a North Yorkshire countryside pub, around a table. That is to be welcomed and this is how conversations evolve. How much better if this was live?

After being censored from a French site for suggesting that "Triumph of the Will" was inappropriate for a product name, because that was too "political", I welcome this

+1 robert p (again).

A few decades ago I served as an USAF Officer. I am a Vietnam War vet, 2 tours. One fine Maine Memorial day my wife and I were watching the parade march by. Leading the parade was an ancient Tsarist Colonel. To my left was a luftwaffe pilot (Captain, I think) enjoying the same fine weather and the parade. One could say our home countries were hostile to us. None of us was going to erect statues to each other, nor to the governments that put us in harms way. Nor would we do it for the leadership we served under. However, we quietly enjoyed the parade together.

I would not be the least bit happy to see a statue of Uncle Ho in my hometown, or anywhere else in the USA. I object viscerally to Statues of men/women who declared war on the USA. My family served in the Union Army. The Confederate Army tried to kill them. Personally, I don't care what rituals you perform in your home, just don't demand to perform them in mine. With the sole exception of one ancestor all my ancestors predate the AWI, some predate The Mayflower. The USA is my home.
The Russian officer, The German officer, and the American officer did not take offense at the others presense, we kept ourselves to ourselves and enjoyed that fine day. There's a lesson there, somewhere. That's where I'm coming from. :^)

Every few years there's a push to remove the statue of General Stewart from the grounds of the Hamilton County Courthouse (Tennessee); Happily, so far, this nonsense has been rejected:

A statue of Confederate general Alexander P. Stewart was unveiled on the courthouse grounds on April 22, 1919 by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Stewart was the commissioner of the Chattanooga-Chickamauga Battlefields from 1890 until his death in 1908.

"I would not be the least bit happy to see a statue of Uncle Ho in my hometown, or anywhere else in the USA. I object viscerally to Statues of men/women who declared war on the USA."

Ho Chi Minh declared war on the USA?

I would think Christians would not want a fellow man to feel the pain of walking under a statue every day memorializing people who wanted to enslave them, and also often put there to keep similarly skin-toned people in their place during Jim Crow.
I believe if Christ were here, he would come up with a parable about enduring the suffering it brings here in this world, and lead into how it is a worldy issue (and let's face it, it is a silly, stupid issue of the world and not Christ) and attempt to bring the listener to him and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Did not Jesus walk under statues to the greater glory of Rome? A country that enslaved and subjugated his people? Did he join the revolts against Rome? Did he tear down or deface the Roman statues, monuments and memorials? I believe he called for peace.

In fact, Jews of his time still practiced slavery and differentiated between Jews and non-Jews, as slaves.

"Yes, Jews in the time of Jesus did own slaves, although the practice was regulated by the Hebrew Bible with distinctions between Hebrew slaves who were treated more like indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves who could be owned permanently; the latter group was often considered to be descendants of Canaan and subject to harsher conditions based on the biblical narrative of the curse of Canaan"

Also

"Hebrew slaves were typically released after a set period of time, often after seven years or during a Jubilee year, while non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently."

Jesus himself did not preach against slavery to my knowledge.

"No, Jesus did not condemn slavery in the New Testament. However, Galatians 3:28 states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus"."

But Jesus did say:

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

Good to know so many are without sin. 😇

I didn't say anything about slavery itself, nor Jesus' view on slavery. I mentioned purposely inflicting emotional pain on others by keeping statues to supporters of slavery around. There is a difference.

But as i pointed out, he also had statues of those who supported slavery and his people practiced it. So it does not seem to have affected what he did or preached, one way or another.

He did not insight his followers to tear them done nor deface them. I am sure he must have seen the pain that slavery caused and saw how his people despised the Romans and their presence.

I would doubt Jesus would have cared much about statues one way or the other. As long as people were not worshiping at them, or they disgraced a holy site.

Statues are simply statues. There are statues and monuments all over the world to those who practiced or supported slavery. I doubt those whose ancestors were enslaved by these peoples or persons feel any pain when viewing them. My ancestors were in countries(Northern European) conquered by Rome, but I would not call for their buildings or statues to be torn down, nor do I feel pain when seeing them.

But he did preach about not hurting others. "love one another as I have loved you." Somehow I don't think making people walk beneath statues in 2024 that cause them emotional pain and turmoil is following that advice.
In my opinion, a Christian would ask themselves why these people are hurting, and do what they could to alleviate that pain.
Is revering one person's ancestor worth the pain inflicted on another?
I'm only discussing this because someone else mentioned Christians. Again, my view is let the voters decide based on changing demographics and time.

Cleburne,

I doubt either of us know what Jesus would think. 🙂

As far as pain. IMO, most of it is faux pain. The in thing was to find something or someone to be offended by or of. Most is of it was being generated for political reasons. Right now the current thing on college campuses and the streets, is to be anti-Semitic pro-Hamas and anti-Israel.

Lastly, if it was placed up for a vote in the county where the statue exists and the county votes to remove it, ok. But those in the county must reimburse the taxpayers the original cost of the statue and pay for the removal. If a nationally built monument, then it should be a national vote.

If the taxpayers of the local government paid to put up the statue, in the county square for example, then the taxpayers of the local government can pay to have it removed after a legal vote from their government representatives.
And yes, a national monument would require a vote from our national representatives in the House and Senate.

I'd prefer a vote of the people. Representatives are too easily influenced by special interest groups, the media, or the "squeaky wheels" and of course $$$. 😉

But Cleburne, I am constantly forced to encounter things that cause me emotional pain and turmoil. What is our rule for deciding whose pain and turmoil is privileged to be alleviated by government action? Who can cry the loudest? Or whose votes are most needed by the politicians?

As for Ho Chi Minh, he was a hero in Vietnam. So statues to him are very appropriate in Vietnam. But not here.

Slight digression here.
Years ago I saw a "public service" commercial featuring some fat bald out of shape Diplomats wrestling in the mud. Showing resolve. 🙄
I'll leave it at that, lest I cause offense.
But I can't help but think that General Smedley Butler had it exactly right about War. And how maybe we're honoring the wrong people.

"I'd prefer a vote of the people."
And that is mob/majority rule, not a constitutional republic. Public referendums are our representatives abdicating their responsibility because they don't want to face the consequences of their votes.

Doc, if you are a Christian, your rule for deciding these things is the Bible. Whether that is through government action, or personal advocacy, is immaterial.

". Public referendums are our representatives abdicating their responsibility because they don't want to face the consequences of their votes."

🤔 But I would say today they are being influenced by a very vocal and sometimes, violent minority. One might say: The Tyranny of the minority.

That's nothing new, and doesn't change the truth of what I said.

@35th OVI "Can we forget that Tecumseh fought against the US"

Was that unreasonable of him?

Yet we rightfully condemn iconoclasm. Take it down and put it in a warehouse, maybe. Do not destroy it.

Yet we rightfully condemn iconoclasm. Take it down and put it in a warehouse, maybe. Do not destroy it.

"@35th OVI "Can we forget that Tecumseh fought against the US"

Was that unreasonable of him?"

I never said that it was not. 🙂 I said he fought against our army in the War of 1812. As did the Germans in my other post. As did the Loyalist who fought against us. As did the British. As some have pointed out .. did the Confederates.

I can say was it not also reasonable for Confederates who joined the army, after the Union crossed into their home states?

I should hate both Tecumseh and his brother and the Indians who fought with him. They killed my great great great grandfather who was on picket duty under Harrison, when they were building Ft Harrison, in Indiana, around Terre Haute today.

Same for the Civil War. I lost 1 relative for the Union and at least 1 for the Confederacy. I had many serving in the Union Army, but some in NC and Texas units.

I hold no animosity to either one of the above.

Yes, Gen. S. Butler had the right of it.

Please, do not bring the folks of Christian Religions into this as some moral compass. They can't even be trusted to observe the teachings of their own Rabbi. For the last 2,000 years they've slaughtered one another with glee over such lofty clerical issues as which of the nine types of Angels can best navigate a maze. It's really a non-issue, because everyone with a brain knows Angels just teleport wherever they want. But they're still willing to kill over a non-issue. 2,000 years ago a Rabbi delivered sermons about peace and love – then fast forward 2,000 years and his supposed worshipers/followers oppress and kill other members of his flock in the pursuit of that which is Caesar's.

Regarding Statues, I've never given one cent to their creation or placement, and I never will.

Regarding CSA Statues:

Slavery is wrong now, and it was wrong in 1860. The Confederate Constitution enshrined no less than six different protections for slavery.
The CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens pronounced the raison d'ętre for the CSA thusly: "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." When men tell you who they are and what they are about, folks should listen and believe them

The CSA government's "corner-stone" was in opposition to the teachings of The Christ. Now, lest you think I judge & condemn the CSA, I do not. Those decisions are reserved for Devine Providence. However, I must decline to support the notion that I should act to preserve statues dedicated to men who supported said government. My apologies for trying to live according to the teachings of The Christ. :^)

So DJ should we also destroy all statues and monuments of people and civilizations who practiced or supported slavery throughout history and today? Or are we just singling out the Confederacy because they enslaved only blacks and did not practice diverse slavery?

"Regarding Statues, I've never given one cent to their creation or placement, and I never will."

Well unless you somehow magically don't pay taxes, you like me, do. Also for maintenance.

35th OVI
I'm an American. I am only concerned with what the USA has done since 1789. Prior to that, it's all on Great Britain.For God's sake the backward Russians freed the Serfs before the USA engaged in an orgy of monumental self-inflicted blood-letting to become a slavery-free country. Either the USA is going to uphold the priciples upon which my ancestors fought/died, or the last light of freedom in this world goes out. The USA needs to live up to our Declaration of Indepedence, and our Constitution of 1789. Until 1865 we permitted slavery to exist within our borders. Now we have an obligation to not look back fondly at those times nor give fond rememberance to slavery, nor those who would continue slavery in perpetuus. Remember Lot's wife looked back, which betrayed her secret longing for that way of life. The USA should not look back in fond remembrance, or deed (statues). The way is forward. Your mileage may vary. :^)

I don't look at them as anything other than men. Many did not agree with, or own slaves, but they fought and died anyway. They believed for their families and homes that were being invaded. The same with many Union soldiers. Many did not care for the slaves, one way or another. They fought for the preservation of the Union. But by the end, like in any war, they fought for each other, for their fellow soldiers and to stay alive. They went on, in order to not let their comrades down.

If those men and their sons and daughters could forgive each other and the animosity of that war and allow those monuments to be built. Who are we to now say, we are offended! They must go! I will take no moral high ground. The war is passed and is history. Just like all other wars.

As I said, if a vote of all the people in the area of a statue want it removed, then I may not agree, but that is democracy. But to have only a vocal few make that decision for all, is wrong.

As we see here in TMP, it is not something that even we agree on.

" I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart.[d] Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
— Percy Shelley, "Ozymandias", 1819 edition

"Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher. All is vanities."

So, we let Time decay.

100 years from now, Robert E Lee will be as meaningless to Kids Today as Miles Standish.

😂🤣
100 years?

Walk into any regular grade or high school and ask them questions about the Civil War today. Even who fought who, yet alone who Sherman or Lee were.

I talk to public at all types of parks, venues, even civil war national military parks. The lack of basic knowledge is amazing. On multiple occasions I've been asked if the monuments were there during the battle, at Gettysburg. One guy thought the artillery was there before the battle and was left there after the battle. 🙂

I did WW2 museum presentations for time, same basic lack of knowledge. Simple things like, who we fought. I've heard British ( sneaky Brits, always trying to get our land) 😉, Russians, Chinese, ???

So 100 years isn't necessary. Talking to the average person about history, is enlightening.

The Vikings were the scourge of Christianity. Now they are the school mascots mostly known for their fighting ferocity and not raping, pillaging, and slave trading.

Wolfhag

Best post I've seen asks what statue will replace them.
Maybe we should plant trees instead.
Honestly, if it's another statue that makes MLK look like Mao a tree is a better choice.

Ay Dios Mio!

John the OFM. Nice bit of Shelley. Sadly, the lessons learned in America's Wars are already beyond meaningless to Kids Today.

35thOVI At least one of my ancestors participated in the genocidal King Philip's War. I don't want to put up statues for him. Why would I?

True, wars come and go. However, we (the USA) never seem to learn from our miscues and mistakes. Has no one in the USA ever read George?

I know there are many Soldiers who are/were brave, heroic, and fearless. BUT, if they served in opposition to the betterment of humanity, they are just another oppressor putting their boot heel on the throat of humanity. What is enobling about such service?

Occasionally, I wonder if my progeny will come to view me through the same lense. I am concerned that eventually Divine Providence may judge me just as harsh when examining my service life. Being sentient and aware of my liabilities means no evasion for me. I may yet get the chance to meet CSA soldiers was I atone for my trepasses.

Pleasure chatting with you. BTW – I am from Hamilton & Clermont counties in Ohio. :^)

Well we disagree on statues, monuments and name changes, but nice discussing it. 😉

Close to Dayton

Too bad these have not been enforced for those vandalized and destroyed.

So those defacing or destroying Washington or any other person who were "veterans", or monuments like the 54th Mass, should be serving time.

One could even loosely use these for monuments of Confederates who served in the US military prior to, or after the Civil War.

Of course Trumps law covers even more.

If we just enforced our laws.

"The Laws & Consequences

The Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003 states that a person who ""willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy, any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." In short, vandalizing states or monuments honoring the military can land you up to 10 years in prison. This is important because a lot of the controversial statues include military members, such as Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Donald Trump also passed a similar Executive Order on June 26th, 2020. The Order states the willful injury of federal property authorizes a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. This broadens the previous act to include statues and monuments that are not military members or military related. The Order also clarifies that federal agencies shall provide information and assistance to state and local law enforcement, related to their investigations for the destruction of monuments, memorials, and statues even if they are not on federal property. This means that even if the statue in question is not on federal property, the federal government can still get involved with the investigation.

These acts, orders, and related legislation outline strict punishment for those who vandalize or destroy statues, monuments, or memorials. Those who violate this legislation can possibly expect a hefty fine, and up to 10 years in prison."

No sooner did I write the above, then they give you ammunition.
There is literally no accounting for stupid.

Subject: Pro-Palestinian activists claim responsibility for vandalism of Ben Franklin statue | The Daily Pennsylvanian

Because Ben was such an anti-Palestinian?
Ben supported the establishment of Israel?
Ben has been sending aid to Israel?

link

The statues erected after Reconstruction were largely about reconciliation, but those built after 1900 in the South carried a different message—they were about asserting power and control. These monuments were designed to communicate who held authority in the post-Reconstruction South and were closely tied to the rise of Jim Crow laws and the Lost Cause narrative.

A historian I know suggests that instead of tearing them down, we should reinterpret these statues and use them as teaching tools, showing how memory and history are not always the same. However, I understand that many African Americans may not want to see these statues in their communities. If they elect officials who decide to remove them, who am I to argue? The country will get along just fine without them, and after a few generations, how many people will still care?

It's curious, though, that in the United States we have statues honoring rebels and traitors. In most other countries, the victors tear down the symbols of the defeated. But here, figures like Robert E. Lee have appeared on postal stamps multiple times, along with other Confederate generals. We erect statues. It's a strange exception to the norm.

"It's curious, though, that in the United States we have statues honoring rebels and traitors. In most other countries, the victors tear down the symbols of the defeated. But here, figures like Robert E. Lee have appeared on postal stamps multiple times, along with other Confederate generals. It's a strange exception to the norm."

Yes, I prefer our way.

But then I believe GB has monuments and statues to their traitors as well. Cromwell and Charles. Yorks and Lancasters. Many lost their heads and lives, because to one side they were traitors, but the other rightful rulers.

Depending on your side in France, Napoleon was a traitor or patriot.

But I think Old Ben deserves better.

Personally, I disapprove of letting mobs decide what's lawful.
Most people are ill informed and… Well.. not so bright.

Churchill starving Indians has been overblown and someone thinking it was all his fault should probably read more sources.
Not that Churchill was perfect but he was a product of his times and not ours.
One teeny detail often overlooked was the devolution in 1935. It was Indians deciding the price of foodstuff from other parts of India.