U.S. cities step up removal of Confederate statues, despite Virginia violence

[Ace of Pop]

. England .?. This is what all Americans can expect eventually.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[jesimps]

I put this in the same category as book burning. You can't change history by pretending it didn't happen. Seems to me that the more the Left are appeased, the more they demand.

Time to come down on them like a ton of bricks before there's ANOTHER civil war.

 

[connda]

They should get rid of other statues of slave owners including all of those slave owners who signed the Declaration of Independence to form the country.  Let's start with Washington and Jefferson and work from there.  And start blasting George Washington's face off Mr Rushmore.  
Perhaps a rewrite of American history is in the cards too.  Let's do it right!!!  

[timendres]

How soon we forget history, and the victors rewrite it.

 

The US Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war over States' Rights!

 

Slavery was certainly front and center in the issue of State's Rights, and I am not in any way defending slavery. But the original US constitution put the Federal government at the bottom, below individual rights, local government rights,  and State government rights. Aside from their limited constitution mandates, the Federal government was not allowed to usurp the rights of a member State.

 

The Civil War was fought by the States who refused to accept that Federal law could override State law. Once the Confederacy (note the specific meaning of this word) lost the war, the Federal government began the process of inverting the constitution to put the Federal government above the State governments. Roughly one hundred years later, after many laws and court cases, the fate of that war was truly sealed and the US States became relatively powerless and insignificant.

[iReason]

8 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Seems to me that the more the Left are appeased, the more they demand.

Time to come down on them like a ton of bricks before there's ANOTHER civil war.

 

Seems to me that there is more and more jejune, myopic labeling than ever.

And assumptions.

[iReason]

5 minutes ago, timendres said:

It was a war over States' Rights!

 

"Slavery was certainly front and center in the issue of State's Rights, and I am not in any way defending slavery. But..."

 Love it.

 

Hmmm, guess what?

Those states were wrong.

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, connda said:

They should get rid of other statues of slave owners including all of those slave owners who signed the Declaration of Independence to form the country.  Let's start with Washington and Jefferson and work from there.  And start blasting George Washington's face off Mr Rushmore.  
Perhaps a rewrite of American history is in the cards too.  Let's do it right!!!  

The statues of Robert E. Lee were erected because of his service to the cause of preserving slavery. I don't think statues were erected to him because he was President of Washington College.

[timendres]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Washington had 317 slaves and Jefferson 600 are they not 'celebrated'? and don't say "yes but not for slavery" as that's disingenuous. 

There is no reasonable person celebrating these two individuals for their slave ownership. They are celebrated for their undeniable contributions to the history of the world. Primarily their establishment of a constitutional republic, and it's institutions, that has stood the test of time and has been the model for many countries since. To deny this contribution, and the place of the United States, in the history of this planet is myopia in the extreme.

[LannaGuy]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

The statues of Robert E. Lee were erected because of his service to the cause of preserving slavery. I don't think statues were erected to him because he was President of Washington College.

Disingenuous they were not erected 'because' of slavery but to honour his memory as a great General. You can't have it both ways saying that Washington/Jefferson statues are ok but Lee is not.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, timendres said:

How soon we forget history, and the victors rewrite it.

 

The US Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war over States' Rights!

 

Slavery was certainly front and center in the issue of State's Rights, and I am not in any way defending slavery. But the original US constitution put the Federal government at the bottom, below individual rights, local government rights,  and State government rights. Aside from their limited constitution mandates, the Federal government was not allowed to usurp the rights of a member State.

 

The Civil War was fought by the States who refused to accept that Federal law could override State law. Once the Confederacy (note the specific meaning of this word) lost the war, the Federal government began the process of inverting the constitution to put the Federal government above the State governments. Roughly one hundred years later, after many laws and court cases, the fate of that war was truly sealed and the US States became relatively powerless and insignificant.

This is from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession

"In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

[LannaGuy]

4 minutes ago, timendres said:

There is no reasonable person celebrating these two individuals for their slave ownership. They are celebrated for their undeniable contributions to the history of the world. Primarily their establishment of a constitutional republic, and it's institutions, that has stood the test of time and has been the model for many countries since. To deny this contribution, and the place of the United States, in the history of this planet is myopia in the extreme.

That's right and same Lee. When i saw the films 'Gods and Generals' I didn't view it as preserving slavery but great Generals. No one believes that slavery is right and no one sees those statues as honoring slavery only some snowflake PC liberals would see it that way.

 

What about other things named after Confederates?  USS Robert E. Lee for example?  you believe it's a sub honoring slavery?

Edited August 16, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Pdaz]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I am certain there are numerous statues in the world of leaders who were monsters, I am not going to do the research though.

The point is, why can't America move forward on this issue?

Because the part of society that has failed to improve it's lot and has been unable to succeed despite assistance, legislation and funding needs something to blame it's failure on. 

And wealthy liberals need a cause so they can feel good about themselves and not let guilt keep them awake at night.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Pdaz

[timendres]

9 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

"Slavery was certainly front and center in the issue of State's Rights, and I am not in any way defending slavery. But..."

 Love it.

 

Hmmm, guess what?

Those states were wrong.

I will agree that slavery was wrong, and needed to be eliminated. I will disagree that States' rights, as defined by the Constitution was wrong, although it is a very complex argument, especially in the modern context of the United States, and this was the true issue at the heart of the Civil War. Could slavery have been eliminated while preserving State's rights? I believe yes, although it may have taken much longer. Are we better off with the Federal government usurping States' rights? Another complex argument, and possibly in the modern world this would have been an unavoidable necessity. But there is a reason we are called "The United States". It was at the very heart of the founding of our country.

[Kiwiken]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes but I have news for you. Every other country in the world had slaves too. 

Beg to differ New Zealand never did

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, timendres said:

I will agree that slavery was wrong, and needed to be eliminated. I will disagree that States' rights, as defined by the Constitution was wrong, although it is a very complex argument, especially in the modern context of the United States, and this was the true issue at the heart of the Civil War. Could slavery have been eliminated while preserving State's rights? I believe yes, although it may have taken much longer. Are we better off with the Federal government usurping States' rights? Another complex argument, and possibly in the modern world this would have been an unavoidable necessity. But there is a reason we are called "The United States". It was at the very heart of the founding of our country.

It's funny. Conservatives always complain about the liberals doing revisionist history. Yet the greatest piece of revisionism in US history was recasting the Civil War as chiefly about States Rights.

[timendres]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This is from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession

"In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

Issue versus principle. The issue was slavery. The principle was States' rights. Hence the need to dissolve their relationship with the Federal government. The issue could have been anything (think "right for same sex marriage" in a modern context), that raised the principle of who had true authority - the State or the Federal government.

 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, timendres said:

Issue versus principle. The issue was slavery. The principle was States' rights. Hence the need to dissolve their relationship with the Federal government. The issue could have been anything (think "right for same sex marriage" in a modern context), that raised the principle of who had true authority - the State or the Federal government.

 

Because the truth was too ugly so it was dressed up as an issue about principles. Lipstick on a pig. Again, look at the Mississippi Declaration of Secession. Read what Jefferson Davis said before the Civil War vs. what he said after.

[timendres]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's funny. Conservatives always complain about the liberals doing revisionist history. Yet the greatest piece of revisionism in US history was recasting the Civil War as chiefly about States Rights.

Not sure how you get conservatives versus liberals from this discussion. Better to say Federalists versus Anti-federalists.

 

Again, you cannot say the Civil War was about slavery. Because had the Federal government not attempted to outlaw slavery, it is unlikely that the war would have occurred at that time. No Federal intervention, no war. States versus the Federal government. In other words, there was no southern State declaring war against a northern State that had outlawed slavery. The issue was slavery, but the war was about who was going to decide the law regarding that issue.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, timendres said:

Not sure how you get conservatives versus liberals from this discussion. Better to say Federalists versus Anti-federalists.

 

Again, you cannot say the Civil War was about slavery. Because had the Federal government not attempted to outlaw slavery, it is unlikely that the war would have occurred at that time. No Federal intervention, no war. States versus the Federal government. In other words, there was no southern State declaring war against a northern State that had outlawed slavery. The issue was slavery, but the war was about who was going to decide the law regarding that issue.

The first sentence as a general comment about how the study of history is viewed.

Not only can I say that the Civil War it was about slavery , I do. The Southern States were looking down the road and they could see that sooner or later there would be enough states to amend the Constitution to outlaw slavery.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I am certain there are numerous statues in the world of leaders who were monsters, I am not going to do the research though.

The point is, why can't America move forward on this issue?

It finally is.

[halloween]

31 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

Beg to differ New Zealand never did

Oh dear, history begins with the coming of the white man, does it?  " As in many other cultures, slavery was a key element of Maori society."

 

http://www.theprow.org.nz/maori/slavery-in-colonial-times/#.WZP2ZOkRVPY

[goldenbrwn1]

I'm British and from Bristol England. We have a similar thing going on here but not on the same scale as the US. Edward Colston was a Bristol born English trader (which inc slaves) and a member of parliament. In the 1700's he spent most of his wealth on philanthropy, here in Bristol... schools; streets; Concert halls and other landmarks are all named after him.  His statue has been defaced in the city centre on a few occasions of late and already the Colsten hall centre which is a big concert venue has been petitioned by a thousand or so people because they are all of a sudden offended by his name..( with the help of music artists now refusing to play there ?) to have its name changed in a few years . The city ignored a massive petition by Bristolians to have it kept.  The rd that it sits on is called colsten st though ?.  

    So I suspect over the time that this looney left cycle actually lasts there will be a few more name changes. 

 

One  point to add is that Bristols student population has increased greatly over the last decade .......

Edited August 16, 2017 by goldenbrwn1

[Salerno]

1 hour ago, timendres said:

They are celebrated for their undeniable contributions to the history of the world.

Care to enlighten a non American as to what contributions they made to the world?

 

6 minutes ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

We have a similar thing going on here but not on the same scale as the US.

It's a worldwide (well, western world) contagion of white guilt.

 

A local council over here just ruled that they will mo longer refer to Australia Day as Australia Day rather they will Refer to the day as "January 26" until another term is adopted nationally and will replace its citizenship ceremony with an event "marking the loss of Indigenous culture".

 

On the plus side the Federal Government has just stripped the council of it's right to hold citizenship ceremonies so hopefully they'll get overturned and booted out.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Disingenuous they were not erected 'because' of slavery but to honour his memory as a great General. You can't have it both ways saying that Washington/Jefferson statues are ok but Lee is not.

The heyday of monument building, between 1890 and 1920, was also a time of extreme racial violence, as Southern whites pushed back against what little progress had been made by African-Americans in the decades after the Civil War. As monuments went up, so did the bodies of black men, women and children during a long rash of lynching.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/confederate-monuments-white-supremacy-charlottesville.html

[mtls2005]

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Washington had 317 slaves and Jefferson 600 are they not 'celebrated'? and don't say "yes but not for slavery" as that's disingenuous. 

 

Robert E. Lee was indicted for treason, Grant through Johnson made the case go away.

 

http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

 

 

Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments

 

“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

 

But while he was alive, Lee stressed his belief that the country should move past the war. He swore allegiance to the Union and publicly decried southern separatism, whether militant or symbolic. “It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”

 

In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

 

“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/

 

 

Lawrence O'Donnell was a bit less forgiving...

 

 

[LannaGuy]

39 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Robert E. Lee was indicted for treason, Grant through Johnson made the case go away.

 

http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

 

 

Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments

 

“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

 

But while he was alive, Lee stressed his belief that the country should move past the war. He swore allegiance to the Union and publicly decried southern separatism, whether militant or symbolic. “It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”

 

In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

 

“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/

 

 

Lawrence O'Donnell was a bit less forgiving...

 

 

USS Robert E. Lee 

[mtls2005]

14 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

USS Robert E. Lee 

Decommissioned‎: ‎1 December 1983

[thaihome]

14 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

USS Robert E. Lee 

Good that you brought the US Navy's naming of several ships for confederate war Heros in the 1950's-60's.This is another example of a political white supremacy statement done under the guise of historical commemoration.  

 

It is important to understand the context of the times.  The USS Robert E Lee was commissioned in 1958, just as the civil rights movement was picking up momentum.  The Senate and congressional military funding committees were dominated by senior Southerners. Another example of this is the addition of the stars and bars to Georgia state flag in 1956. 

 

These people have been doing this sort of thing since 1877 when Reconstruction was stopped in return for acknowledging the decision of the Electoral College that Republican Hayes won the presidency.  In return, the last Union troops in Louisiana, South Carolina,  and Florida were removed.  Within 10 years, blacks were legally deprived of the right to vote and could not testify against a white person in court.  These people have had lots of practice and have convinced generations now it was only about "state's rights" and not slavery and white supremacy. 

 

Just think, there is chance that a black sailor on Robert E Lee could have had a great grandfather/mother the Marse Robert had personally whipped or sold off from their family and the story passed down through the generations. How would that have felt.

TH 

 

[timendres]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

6 hours ago, timendres said:

Not sure how you get conservatives versus liberals from this discussion. Better to say Federalists versus Anti-federalists.

 

Again, you cannot say the Civil War was about slavery. Because had the Federal government not attempted to outlaw slavery, it is unlikely that the war would have occurred at that time. No Federal intervention, no war. States versus the Federal government. In other words, there was no southern State declaring war against a northern State that had outlawed slavery. The issue was slavery, but the war was about who was going to decide the law regarding that issue.

The first sentence as a general comment about how the study of history is viewed.

Not only can I say that the Civil War it was about slavery , I do. The Southern States were looking down the road and they could see that sooner or later there would be enough states to amend the Constitution to outlaw slavery.

Hence, their desire to secede from the nation. The issue of slavery ran dead smack into the Constitutional question of States' rights. Could the Federal government supercede the State on an issue such as slavery? This is one of the primary objectives of Article XIV :

Quote

 

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

 

This, once and for all, fundamentally changed the Constitution, killed States' rights, and put the US on it's current trajectory.

 

The Anti-federalists argued, and almost won, during the birth of the constitution, that the future held Federal power over the States. This was the primary impetus for the Bill of Rights. In the end, their fears were justified.

 

The issue could have been anything - slavery, marriage rights, taxes. The reason for war was a Federal government taking away State rights, and refusing to allow those States to leave the union. If the issue was simply one of slavery, why were the Confederate States not allowed to secede? That would have just as well eliminated slavery in the United States! Had States retained the right to decide on slavery, no war. Had they been allowed to secede, no war. The nation had finally come to a point where it could no longer ignore the original question: who is in power - the Federal government, or the State governments? The Civil War settled that question.

[timendres]

3 hours ago, thaihome said:

These people have had lots of practice and have convinced generations now it was only about "state's rights" and not slavery and white supremacy. 

Slavery (and the white supremacy often attached to it) was (and still is where ever and however it exists) an abomination. It's elimination was painful and it's rectification abysmal. Clearly the slave owners cared about their States' rights only with selfish regard for maintaining slavery. But that does not change the Civil War. Again, the United States could have allowed the Confederate States to secede (one wonders how history would be different had this happened), eliminating slavery within the nation. As Lincoln stated often: we are fighting to preserve the union. At that moment in history, it was clear that to preserve the union, the issue of States' rights needed to be resolved once and for all. And it was.