Erasing the Confederacy -How Far Would you Go?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I can't change my vote, but at this point I am okay with all of the first five, assuming museums and such don't count under "public grounds". However, I very firmly draw the line at 6, I would consider that be a very blatant violation of free speech and completely unacceptable.

This exactly.

With all due respect to those arguing the opposing position, I don't really comprehend how removing monuments to the Confederacy – and yes, they were very much erected to celebrate the myth of the "Lost Cause" – qualifies as "erasing history." Perhaps, if the proposal were to close all battlefields, historic sites, and museums that preserve the history of the Confederacy, I would agree with you; but that is not the debate. There are far better, more appropriate mediums in which to address this dark chapter of our history than a statue in a public park – where it is devoid of context and therefore represents a lost opportunity to have a calm and reasonable discussion of the enduring legacy of the events it commemorates. These monuments should not be destroyed; they should be relocated to museums and historic areas where they may be viewed and understood in the broader context of the history of the Civil War, instead of being ignored by 99% of Americans until a bunch of crazies show up with torches and swastika flags to set the world on fire.

[JerryArkansas]

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

They were put up to honour them, to venerate them.  What evidence do you have to say otherwise?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

They were put up to honour them, to venerate them.  What evidence do you have to say otherwise?

Well let's just take this recent story as an example........read it.

http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/12632146-74/confederate-monuments-to-stay-at-gettysburg

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I am deeply ashamed to have checked off options at the time. NOTA of course (normal American, slient majority)

[RINO Tom]

I have a Confederate flag sticker on my car right now.  It's all about loving the old ways of doing things

No, it's not.  And care to define "the old ways" of doing things??  I hope you don't mean how the South was regarding civil rights in the past; nobody should "love" that.

[JerryArkansas]

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

They were put up to honour them, to venerate them.  What evidence do you have to say otherwise?

Well let's just take this recent story as an example........read it.

http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/12632146-74/confederate-monuments-to-stay-at-gettysburg

One example, out of 2000 or so.  Yeah great track record.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

They were put up to honour them, to venerate them.  What evidence do you have to say otherwise?

Well let's just take this recent story as an example........read it.

http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/12632146-74/confederate-monuments-to-stay-at-gettysburg

One example, out of 2000 or so.  Yeah great track record.

I said in my initial post they are not necessarily put up to honor........I didn't say they're never put up to honor.  You asked me to put up an example or shut up.  I put up. In fact Gettysburg is a HUGE example, not some statue in a square in BFE.   So shut up.

[Cashew]

1-5, although the regular solders that were brainwashed or conscripted into fighting this war do still deserve some respect, so I am willing to make an exception at cemeteries provided the statues are solemn and not celebratory, but as we all know respecting the courage of solders in an apolitical manner was never the intention behind the vast majority of these monuments, those should be broken up and scattered or recycled.

There are also certain locations that have gained too much historical significance for other reasons that makes the value of remaining them questionable. One thing that I would oppose renaming is the Edmund Pettus Bridge because although it was named after a confederate general and klansman, it is famous as the sight where where civil rights activists marched to overcome what he helped to establish. At this point leaving his name alone while black people cross "his" bridge daily constitutes a bigger f**k you than changing the name would be.

Another thing that needs to be done is strip the SCV and UDC of their tax exempt status for their political meddling, as well as their black confederate and states' rights falsehoods. While at it send in a few FBI informants to expose whatever connection they have to white nationalists.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Another thing that needs to be done is strip the SCV and UDC of their tax exempt status for their political meddling, as well as their black confederate and states' rights falsehoods.

If only SCV could avoid meddling in politics like the good non-profits. You know, like Planned Parenthood, and the NRA, and the ACLU, and the Sierra Club. The SCV needs to dial back its political activities to only be as politically meddlesome and dishonest as a teacher's union. Because we all know that when election time rolls around, you cant watch tv for 10 minutes without seeing an ad from the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

[fhtagn]

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

^ This.

Also...

The majority of the people in the towns where these statues are located pass by them every day without much of a second thought, and have done so for years. Taking them down because of a very small group of people making up bogus claims of feeling "oppressed" because a statue of a historical figure exists is a very slippery slope that we should not be making a path towards.

Where does it stop? Because it's fairly obvious that once the Confederate statues are gone, they will find something else that makes them feel "oppressed". And there have been many instances of people pushing to remove statues and rename things after ALL slave owners, which include America's founding fathers.

It makes much more sense to just add a plaque or a sign placing them in context, rather than unnecessarily removing them.

[Cashew]

Another thing that needs to be done is strip the SCV and UDC of their tax exempt status for their political meddling, as well as their black confederate and states' rights falsehoods.

If only SCV could avoid meddling in politics like the good non-profits. You know, like Planned Parenthood, and the NRA, and the ACLU, and the Sierra Club. The SCV needs to dial back its political activities to only be as politically meddlesome and dishonest as a teacher's union. Because we all know that when election time rolls around, you cant watch tv for 10 minutes without seeing an ad from the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

I see what you are trying to say, but I will add that I actually support reining in planned parenthood politically. The other two you mentioned are 501c4 and more fact based. Tax exemptions are a privilege not a right.

[Green Line]

Let the localities decide.  If there were any in Chicago, I'd want them destroyed.  I don't live in the South though, so it's none of my damn business.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Where does it stop? Because it's fairly obvious that once the Confederate statues are gone, they will find something else that makes them feel "oppressed". And there have been many instances of people pushing to remove statues and rename things after ALL slave owners, which include America's founding fathers.

I mean, activists are silly, but it doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of history to recognize the difference between a group of individuals who created a country that would one day abolish slavery and a group of individuals who fought to destroy that country in hopes of preserving slavery.

Personally, I'm not fussed about the monuments, because it seems to me vaguely humanoid pieces of rock are not the gravest threat to constructive race relations in America today. This is a matter, as diptheridan said, that ought to be left to the relevant municipalities themselves, who can then decide how best to respectfully and honestly commemorate this period of American history. With that said, it is simply bad historianship to draw any sort of equivalency between the founding fathers and the leaders of the Confederacy, whether as an argument for preserving monuments to the latter or disassembling monuments to the former.

[Wakie77]

Does anyone really think we should "erase" history?  No, of course not.  But we also should not be publicly praising a bunch of jerks who attacked federal property and killed members of the US military all in the name of creating a separate nation that, according to its VP, was

"founded upon exactly [this] 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 ... maybe we don't want to praise that.

[The Mikado]

I don't feel it's a matter of "erasing" the Confederacy. The Civil War and Reconstruction are important eras for understanding how our country ended up the way it did. Public scorn for celebrating the legacy of the CSA is completely appropriate and I'm glad to see the public is adopting it and attempting to shame those who still glorify the Lost Cause, but that is not in any way the same thing as "erasing" the Confederacy.

Put simply, I don't want the government in any way praising the actions of the states that seceded or their military forces, and private individuals and companies that do so won't have my support and I hope others will likewise turn their backs on them. That is not hoping for erasure of the CSA, that's hoping for a more critical examination of what it was and what it stood for.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Note that all these documents from 1860-1861 make it perfectly clear what the South was seceding to do: protect slavery from Northern Republicans and abolitionists. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is one of the most vile causes any man on this continent has ever fought for (Indian Removal might rival it), and why should we celebrate old Bobby Lee's "brilliant" maneuvers and orders at Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville? Why should Lee be celebrated, or Stonewall Jackson, or Braxton Bragg (not only a Confederate, but a loser, and one who has a U. S. military base inexplicably named after him), or Nathan Forrest? Why should we still have cities and counties named after Jefferson Davis?

I had it right two years ago. It's not about forgetting the Confederacy, it's about stopping the celebration of it.

[fhtagn]

Does anyone really think we should "erase" history?  No, of course not.  But we also should not be publicly praising a bunch of jerks who attacked federal property and killed members of the US military all in the name of creating a separate nation that, according to its VP, was

"founded upon exactly [this] 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 ... maybe we don't want to praise that.

I mean if we are basing our arguments off "things racist people said"...



We should probably stop pretending that the Union treated blacks as equals.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There are so, so many bad arguments drawing false equivalencies between Abraham Lincoln and the leaders of the Confederacy that I honestly do not have the energy to compose a fresh response to the above post... so I will instead reiterate what I said two months ago in course of a similar discussion:

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of judging historical figures by their private opinions more than by their public actions. The fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, Lincoln freed the slaves (you can argue about the why, but at the end of the day the result was the same) whereas [the Confederacy led a rebellion] whose stated goal was the preservation of chattel slavery in America. Their own moral rectitude is not really a relevant consideration, unless you're in the position of weighing souls, which a historian most certainly should not be. I will add, though, that there's a definite difference between believing blacks to be of an inferior race (which was a pretty standard view nationally in the 1850s) and believing that they were better off enslaved than free (which Lincoln, for all his hedging and evolutions on the issue, never contended).

and Yankee's response (emphasis is my own):

Weighing past figures against the modern standard, will distort the vantage point and the most important takeaway.

There is no such thing as perfectionism in history, there is only the constant quest for betterment. I am so tired of these revisionists like that idiot in the NC legislature a few weeks back who attacked Lincoln. Lincoln is hero in our history because relative to the times, he moved the ball 20 yards, while Lee was playing defense. Did Lincoln violate civil liberties? Yes, but so did the damn South many times over. A slave society is by nature a totalitarian society because of the constant few of servile insurrection.

The South didn't become more extreme because of Northern pressure. The south led most every argument, every demand, demanded the breaking of every past agreement, because they concentration of slaves in growing numbers posed a severe threat to public safety and the constant fear, that motivated the increasing extremism, was that worry that tomorrow the South will look like something out of the movie Spartacus (and these people knew classical history).

As this become a more pressing fear, more repressive laws were passed making it illegal to teach blacks to read, making it illegal to espouse religious beliefs that opposed slavery and made it illegal to campaign against it or organize against it. And if a slave runs a away you could be compelled to join a posse to track them down. That is violations of freedom of speech, religion, association and press.

Along with this heightened fear of the concentration of slavery in the slave states, came increasing demands for lands. Suddenly the Missouri Compromise is anti-Southern and has to be repealed. Suddenly you have to force Northerners to help catch runaway slaves (Fugitive Slave Act) and trample all over Northern State's rights, in order for the South's state's rights to be preserved. Finally, the courts start throwing out decades of precedence, to make rulings favorable to South and finally the Supreme Court has to violate all sorts of precedent, norms and the constitution to rule that it is unconstitutional to deny anyone's right to own slaves. It took the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision to unify the North behind a Slavery Restrictionist like Lincoln.

The south didn't become more extreme because they annoyed by a few posters sent south from New England. The South became more extreme because they were scared crapless that they would wake up to find their throats being cut by machetes. The south literally wanted "breathing space" or if you prefer "lebensraum" to spread the slaves out and reduce the risk of servile insurrection, them constantly demanding more and more, and getting it at many stages, pushed the North to unify behind a single party and candidate opposed to the expansion of Slavery. Lincoln would not have won in 1856 or any prior election.

Its hilarious when you consider the parallel that Kalwejt made, because the political evolution of the south is fairly similar (Though much elongated over time) to the ever increasing demands by Hitler in order for him to to be "satisfied".

One final thought: instead of dedicating our energy to a century-old argument over whether a defeated 19th century slaveholder's rebellion represented an exceptional evil or an ordinary evil in the context of the times, perhaps we could commemorate the actual slaves who took it upon themselves to achieve emancipation before and during the Civil War? As much as I firmly believe Lincoln's presidency moved the country in the right direction, and was absolutely transformational in terms of the continuing realization and expansion of the ideals of the American Revolution, it has always struck me as a little odd that we give so little attention to people like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman who were actively abolishing their own condition of slavery long before the Emancipation Proclamation was even conceived of.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

All of the above

[Wells]

I support the first two and wouldn't really care either way about the next three. That being said,

History is history.......erasing it to pretend it didn't happen is silly.  So is taking down statues, which are not necessarily put up to honor, but to remember.

Taking down the statues doesn't mean they're pretending it didn't happen. I think that there are just better ways of remembering the Confederacy anyway. Children still learn about history in schools and anyone can go to a museum, which is where these statues belong. And if they were erected to remember, then why were so many erected at the same time Jim Crow was being enacted?

The majority of the people in the towns where these statues are located pass by them every day without much of a second thought, and have done so for years.

If they're just passing by them "without much of a second thought", there's not much remembering of history going on, which really defeats the supposed purpose.

Taking them down because of a very small group of people making up bogus claims of feeling "oppressed" because a statue of a historical figure exists is a very slippery slope that we should not be making a path towards.

You're better than this, fhtagn. You can have rational arguments without claiming the opposition is completely made up of people with "bogus" feelings. And it's not a small group of people either. In Charlottesville for example, a real person with real feelings wrote this last year:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She also started a petition to remove the statue which got hundreds of signatures. (Source)

(And if the only people who notice the statues are outraged by it that's not a good point in favor of the statues.)

Where does it stop? Because it's fairly obvious that once the Confederate statues are gone, they will find something else that makes them feel "oppressed". And there have been many instances of people pushing to remove statues and rename things after ALL slave owners, which include America's founding fathers.

It's not like everyone who wants to take down Confederate statues also wants to take down statues of Jefferson and Washington. There are lots of people with nuances in their opinions. There is a reason the attempts at removing the traces of our founding fathers have been rarer and less successful and will continue to be that way.

I mean if we are basing our arguments off "things racist people said"...

Did Lincoln ever act upon that? There is a difference between people who started a war in order to keep slaves and the people who stopped them.

We should probably stop pretending that the Union treated blacks as equals.

They didn't and we don't, but black people weren't trying to escape from the North to the South that often. Just saying.

Atlas Forum
- General Politics
-- U.S. General Discussion
--- Civil War Megathread (LATEST: Battle at Fort Sumter)

fhtagn4141 YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 6753

Re: Civil War Megathread (LATEST: Battle at Fort Sumter) « Reply #156 on: April 13, 1861, 4:13:22 am »We should probably stop pretending that the Union treats blacks as equals. This is why I am a centrist. Both sides are equally bad in this war.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Like clearly this issue is pointless to debate, but I really find it ignorant how frequently opponents fall back on this hilarious assumption that apparently we build war memorials literally the week after the war ends and build statues to people while they are still alive. The WW2 memorial in DC wasn't finished until like 2005. What is the ulterior motive behind the 70 year delay? The MLK momument went up close to 50 yrs after his death. What was the ulterior motive there? Im sure some memorials probably did go up for reasons other than just honoring the dead, but this idea that apparently there is only a narrow timeframe for when anyone builds a memorial for the "right reason", is ignorant of reality.

Plus, can we not pretend that if the south hadnt been uterly destroyed during the war, and hadnt been militarily occupied for a decade after, and all the southern leaders hadnt continued to live for up to decades after the war ended, and the southern governments somehow had the disposable income immediately after the war to pay for these monuments, that the vocal iconoclasts would shrug their shoulders and be totally fine with a Robert E. Lee statue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is one thing that we should honor Robert E. Lee for. In April 1865, he could have sent his men to disperse into the hills and turn into raiding bands and fight a Viet Cong style war of attrition with the North. There were people that wanted to do just that. He also could have, when he was surrounded on all sides, just throw his men into battle like some of the epic take no prisoners style battles of antiquity. There were some who wanted him to do just that.


In terms of America's future unity and strength, we should be thankful for Lee's character and reason in deciding that it was all over and agreeing to surrender. And we should be thankful to Grant for his leniency with the surrender terms and intervening to save Lee from a treason trial, which Andrew Johnson was considering moving towards, by threatening to resign.

Its kind of like the Allies decision to not only leave Hirohito in power, but even cover for him and hide his complicity in war crimes. Was the person guilty and did he deserve punishment, yes! But is the consequences, the turmoil, the anarchy and the death worth the noble, idealistic stance outweighing practical necessities? No. How many US soldiers would die pacifying Japan, as opposed to just having a divinely ordained Emperor (in their view, especially for the hard liners) order them to fall in line.

If you have someone who is revered by the other side, and they acknowledge defeat and work to pacify the civil population and encourage peace, and therefore work to your advantage, it is in your interest to keep them alive and use them to your advantage. I think Grant got it right in April 1865 and I think Truman and MacArthur got it right in 1945.

It is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion of the extent to which Lee should be honored and for a long time it has gone too far, but now it risks going too far the other way. One thing I liked about the History Channel documentary April 1865, was it ended with Jay Winik listing the five people who saved America, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Lee and Johnston. Jefferson Davis is not on that list for a reason, but Lee and Johnston are on that list and there is a great reason for that. (Of course that documentary was made 15 years ago. Damn that makes me feel old! It had real, credible, Civil War Historians contributing. Much different from today's History Channel with conspiracy quacks they interview to pontificate about what ifs and salacious allegations with no proof, dramatic music and all packaged perfectly to market to same audience as Alex Jones caters too.)

[Burke Bro]

1, 4 & 5.

2 & 3 should be left for locals to decide on.

[Wakie77]

Dear Confederate Defenders ... you lost, get over it.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Removing the Confederate flag from public grounds and license plates, Getting rid of Confederate History Month, Getting rid of Confederate holidays.

The first one is clear- the Confederate flag can't be on official things. The latter two make sense to me as well- if people want to celebrate them, they can, but it can't be official. As for monuments... I'm kind of on the fence here. I think that if the locals decide to remove them it's encourageable, and that monuments of especially awful people must be removed, but otherwise I'm uneasy with forcibly destroying history. As for confederate names, I think the same as about the monuments- no names of terrible people, and let the locals decide about the rest.
Forbidding homeowners from flying the flag is a nope.